ljotwCT!' 

HOUSE  OF  THE  No.  1751 

OHlVfwSITY  OF  ILtlHOU 

18  MAR  1915 


DOCUMENTS  AND  PAPERS 


SUBMITTED  BV  THE 


MASSACHUSETTS  COMMISSION  ON  ECONOMY 

AND  EFFICIENCY 


TO  THE 


HONORABLE  SENATE  AND  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF 
THE  COMMONWEALTH  OF  MASSACHUSETTS 
IN  GENERAL  COURT  ASSEMBLED. 


February'  15,  1915. 


BOSTON : 

WRIGHT  &  POTTER  PRINTING  CO.,  STATE  PRINTERS, 

32  DERNE  STREET. 

1915. 


•  •-i. 


'  •  -■ 


> 


4 


/  ;  • 


V  ,  • 


•  r.i  *;*  :>  «•  j 

»  i.  >  •  ‘  *  f  •  ' 


-  ' ; 

/  ...  k 


-*•  %  «.  ,  ,  .  *< ' v  f  .  -  •  • 

\»  •*  -  f  si 


-  r  * 

«#  / 


•: 

i 


3  5 

hi  1 3  £  d 


fc- 

[Ordered  printed  on  motion  of  Mr.- Quinn  of  Swampscott.] 

Ux  '•  -•  :  .  \  .  ""  '  •  •  '  •  •  •  ‘  '? 

'  •  r.  ■ 

f  Cfte  Commontoealtft  of  9^a0$a tbumt$. 

j!  r .  -  •  ' 


Commission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency, 

Room  110,  State  House,  Boston,  Feb.  15,  1915. 

To  the  Honorable  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Commonwealth  of 

Massachusetts  in  General  Court  assembled. 

In  compliance  with  an  order  adopted  by  the  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives  Jan.  13,  1915,  and  by  the  Senate  in  concurrence  Feb.  9,  1915, 
said  order  providing  “  that  the  Commission  on  Economy  and  Effi¬ 
ciency  be  directed  to  furnish  to  the  General  Court  copies  of  all  docu¬ 
ments  and  papers  presented  to  the  Governor  and  Council  in  respect  to 
the  recent  investigation  of  the  Department  of  Animal  Industry  and 
the  removal  of  the  commissioner  therefrom,”  the  Commission  on 
Economy  and  Efficiency  submits  herewith  the  following  documents  and 
papers:  — 

1.  Copy  of  “Report  on  the  action  taken  by  the  Department  of 
Animal  Industry  to  extirpate  the  foot-and-mouth  disease  in  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  submitted  to  His  Excellency  the  Governor  and  the  honor¬ 
able  Council,  by  the  Commission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency,  Dec. 
23,  1914.” 

Report  contains  copies  of  the  following  documents  which  are  not 
submitted  as  separate  documents:  — 

(a)  Copy  of  telegram  sent  from  Albany,  N.  Y.,  by  Dr.  William  T. 
White,  an  agent  of  the  Massachusetts  Department  of  Animal  In¬ 
dustry,  to  “Fred  F.  Walker,  138  State  House,  Boston,  Mass.” 

(b)  Copy  of  letter  dated  Nov.  6,  1914,  from  “United  States  Depart¬ 
ment  of  Agriculture,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  Washington,  D.  C.,” 
to  “Mr.  Fred  F.  Walker,  Commissioner  of  Animal  Industry,  Boston, 
Massachusetts,”  signed  by  “J.  R.  Mohler,  Acting  Chief  of  Bureau.” 

(c)  Copy  of  letter  dated  Nov.  11,  1914,  from  “The  Commonwealth 
of  Massachusetts,  Council  Chamber,”  to  “Mr.  Fred  F.  Walker, 
Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  State  House,  Boston,”  signed  by  “  E.  F. 
Hamlin,  Executive  Secretarv.” 

1  V 


4 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


2.  Copy  of  transcript  of  notes  taken  at  the  hearing  given  by  the 
Commission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency  to  Mr.  Fred  F.  Walker,  Com¬ 
missioner  of  Animal  Industry,  at  Hoorn  110,  State  House,  Boston, 
Monday,  Dec.  21,  1914,  at  2.30  p.m. 

3.  Copy  of  letter  dated  Dec.  14,  1914,  from  “The  Commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts,  Office  of  Department  of  Animal  Industry,”  to  the 
“Commission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency,”  and  signed  by  “Fred  F. 
Walker,  Commissioner.” 

(3a)  Copy  of  schedule  dated  Dec.  12,  1914  (inclosure  submitted 
with  No.  3),  showing  list  of  herds  condemned  and  destroyed  by  the 
Commissioner  of  Animal  Industry,  because  affected  with  or  exposed  to 
foot-and-mouth  disease. 

4.  Copy  of  memorandum  showing  a  summary  of  the  total  number  of 
each  type  of  animal  condemned  and  destroyed  by  the  Commissioner  of 
Animal  Industry,  because  affected  with  or  exposed  to  foot-and-mouth 
disease  as  of  Dec.  12,  1914. 

5.  Copy  of  memorandum  relative  to  the  appraisal  of  cattle  destroyed 
on  account  of  foot-and-mouth  disease  belonging  to  the  herd  of  J.  W. 
Ellsworth  and  the  herd  of  H.  Levine,  both  of  Worcester,  Mass. 

(5a)  Copy  of  memorandum  relative  to  the  appraisal  of  cattle  de¬ 
stroyed  on  account  of  foot-and-mouth  disease  belonging  to  the  herd 
of  W.  B.  Fearing,  Hingham,  Mass. 

6.  Copy  of  schedule  showing  payments  on  account  of  foot-and- 
mouth  disease  up  to  Dec.  1,  1914. 

7.  Form  used  by  “The  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  Office  of 
Department  of  Animal  Industry,  State  House,  Boston,”  which  owner 
of  animals  affected  with  or  exposed  to  foot-and-mouth  disease  signs. 

8.  Copy  of  letter  dated  Dec.  15,  1914,  from  “The  Commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts,  Office  of  Department  of  Animal  Industry,”  addressed 
“To  the  Honorable  Board  of  Commission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency,” 
signed  by  “Fred  F.  Walker,  Commissioner.” 

(8a)  Copy  of  telegram  (inclosure  with  No.  8)  dated  Nov.  5,  1914, 
from  H.  E.  Paige,  Amherst,  Mass.,  to  Fred  F.  Walker,  State  House, 
Boston. 

(8b)  “F.  I.  Form  93  B  ”  (inclosure  with  No.  8),  “  L  nited  States  De¬ 
partment  of  Agriculture,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry.” 

9.  Copy  of  letter  dated  Dec.  16,  1914,  from  “The  Commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts,  Commission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency,  Room  110, 
State  House,  Boston,”  to  “Thomas  J.  Boynton,  Esq.,  Attorney 
General,  State  House,  Boston,”  signed  by  chairman  of  the  commission, 
requesting  an  opinion  on  No.  7. 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


5 


10.  Copy  of  extract  from  daily  journal  of  the  Massachusetts  Com¬ 
mission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency,  dated  Dec.  19,  1914. 

11.  Form  “The  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  Office  of  Depart¬ 
ment  of  Animal  Industry,  State  House,  Boston”  —  modified  form  not  in 
use  prior  to  Dec.  21,  1914. 

12.  “F.  I.  Form  99  B,  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture, 
Bureau  of  Animal  Industry.” 

13.  Copy  of  letter  dated  Dec.  16,  1914,  from  “The  Commonwealth 
of  Massachusetts,  Commission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency,  Room  110, 
State  House,  Boston,”  to  “United  States  Department  of  Agriculture, 
Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  Washington,  D.  C.,  Chief  of  Bureau,” 
signed  by  the  chairman  of  the  commission. 

14.  Copy  of  letter  dated  Dec.  26,  1914,  from  the  “  Department  of 
Agriculture,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  Washington,  D.  C.,”  to  the 
chairman  of  the  Commission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency,  Room  110, 
State  House,  Boston,  signed  by  A.  D.  Melvin,  Chief  of  Bureau. 

15.  Copy  of  two  extract's  from  the  daily  journal  of  the  Massachusetts 
Commission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency,  dated  Dec.  21,  1914. 

16.  Copy  of  memorandum  relative  to  payments  made  in  the  fiscal 
year  1914  by  Commissioner  Walker  to  Langdon  Frothingham,  M.D.V., 
chairman  of  the  Massachusetts  Board  of  Registration  in  Veterinary 
Medicine,  for  expert  services  relative  to  work  performed  by  the 
Massachusetts  Department  of  Animal  Industry. 

17.  Copy  of  memorandum  relative  to  payments  made  in  the  fiscal 
year  1914  by  Commissioner  Walker  to  L.  H.  Howard,  M.D.V.,  member 
of  the  Massachusetts  Board  of  Registration  in  Veterinary  Medicine. 

18.  Copy  of  legal  references  in  relation  to  the  Massachusetts  De¬ 
partment  of  Animal  Industry. 

19.  Book  issued  by  “The  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  Depart¬ 
ment  of  Animal  Industry,  Laws  relating  to  Contagious  Diseases  of 
Domestic  Animals,  1912.” 

t 

Respectfully  submitted, 

COMMISSION  ON  ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY, 

Francis  X.  Tyrrell,  Chairman. 

Thomas  W.  White. 

Russell  A.  Wood. 


■  i  ‘ 


-  € 
,  - 


>•- 


REPORT  ON  THE  ACTION  TAKEN  BY  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF 
ANIMAL  INDUSTRY  TO  EXTIRPATE  THE  FOOT-AND- 
MOUTH  DISEASE  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  SUBMITTED  TO  HIS 
EXCELLENCY  THE  GOVERNOR  AND  THE  HONORABLE  COUN¬ 
CIL  BY  THE  COMMISSION  ON  ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY 
DEC.  23,  1914. 


Dec.  23,  1914. 

To  His  Excellency  David  I.  Walsh,  Governor,  and  the  Honorable  Council,  State 

House,  Boston. 

Gentlemen:  —  Acting  in  accordance  with  chapter  719  of  the  Acts  of 
the  year  1912,  as  amended  by  chapter  698  of  the  Acts  of  the  year 
1914,  and  with  the  power  and  authority  therein  contained,  the  Com¬ 
mission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency  respectfully  submits  the  following 
report  relative  to  the  work  of  the  Department  of  Animal  Industry  in 
its  effort  to  extirpate  the  foot-and-mouth  disease  in  Massachusetts. 
The  investigation  upon  which  this  report  is  based  was  made  on  the 
initiative  of  this  commission. 

The  foot-and-mouth  disease,  which  is  extremely  contagious  although 
not  fatal,  has  swept  over  the  State,  resulting  in  the  killing  of  5,161 
cattle  and  other  live  stock  by  agents  of  the  Massachusetts  Department 
of  Animal  Industrv. 

t / 

According  to  the  testimony  of  Commissioner  Walker  of  the  Depart¬ 
ment  of  Animal  Industrv,  in  conference  with  the  Commission  on 
Economv  and  Efficiencv,  the  first  intimation  he  had  of  the  recent 
epidemic  of  foot-and-mouth  disease  in  this  Commonwealth  was  on 
November  5,  and  on  December  12  the  last  known  case  was  disposed  of. 
The  destruction  of  cattle  and  other  live  stock  by  the  Department  of 
Animal  Industry  during  this  period  has  been  appraised  by  the  Federal 
and  State  appraisers  for  an  aggregate  amount  of  $106,820.75. 

The  fighting  and  extirpating  of  this  disease  devolved  upon  the 
Massachusetts  Department  of  Animal  Industry,  and  in  surveying  and 
investigating  the  work  to  stop  the  epidemic  this  commission  has  called 
into  conference  the  head  of  that  department,  Commissioner  Fred  F. 
Walker,  Dr.  F.  C.  Field,  agent  in  charge  of  quarantine  stations,  and 
Myron  T.  Carrigan,  the  cattle  appraiser  for  the  Commonwealth;  Dr. 


8 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


James  T.  Ryder,  who  is  in  charge  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Animal 

Industry,  stationed  in  Boston,  was  also  interviewed.  All  records  and 

material  in  any  way  connected  with  the  campaign  against  the  disease 

have  been  carefully  examined. 

«/ 

This  commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  plans  adopted  by  Com¬ 
missioner  Walker  were  neither  comprehensively  nor  intelligently 
thought  out.  The  work  was  handicapped  by  the  fact  that  the  com¬ 
missioner  is  not  a  veterinarian.  Mr.  Walker  should  have  availed  him¬ 
self  and  made  good  use  of  all  the  facilities  which  the  Commonwealth 
provides  by  getting  in  touch  with  such  experts  as  are  now  members  of 
the  State  Department  of  Health  and  with  the  Attorney-General,  with 
whom  he  should  have  conferred  in  regard  to  the  rights  of  the  Com¬ 
monwealth. 

At  the  outset,  this  commission  contends  that  the  disease  should 
never  have  been  allowed  to  spread  over  this  State,  and  Commissioner 
Walker  was  at  fault  in  not  taking  sufficient  precautions  in  time. 

.  The  Brighton  stockyards,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Com¬ 
missioner  Walker,  were  not  quarantined  until  November  5,  the  date 
of  the  reporting  of  the  first  case  of  the  foot-and-mouth  disease  in  this 
State  by  an  agent  of  the  Department  of  Animal  Industry.  Mr. 
Walker  testified  before  this  commission  that  he  had  knowledge  of  the 
existence  of  the  disease  during  the  month  of  October  in  States  from 
which  cattle  are  shipped  to  Massachusetts.  On  October  21  Dr. 
William  T.  White,  an  agent  of  the  Massachusetts  Department  of 
Animal  Industry,  sent  a  telegram  from  Albany,  which  read  as  fol¬ 
lows:  — 

1914,  Oct.  21. 

Fred  F.  Walker,  Rm.  138 ,  State  House,  Boston,  Moss. 

Have  just  seen  Wills.  He  informs  me  foot  and  mouth  disease  found  among 
hogs  at  Buffalo  three  weeks  ago.  None  since.  Disease  exists  in  Behrin  Co., 
Mich.,  and  St.  Joseph  Co.,  Ind.  Possible  shipments  of  cattle  through  Buffalo 
may  have  gone  to  Brighton;  will  get  further  news,  if  any. 

White. 

Wills  is  the  State  veterinarian  for  New  York.  Mr.  Walker  states  that 
he  could  get  no  confirmation  of  this  report  from  Dr.  James  T.  Ryder, 
who  is  in  charge  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  at  Boston. 
So  far  as  his  testimony  is  concerned,  no  further  effort  was  made  by 
him  to  ascertain  if  the  disease  actually  existed  in  the  Buffalo  stock- 
vards.  He  further  admits  that  he  knew  of  the  existence  of  the  disease 
in  Michigan,  Iowa  and  northern  Indiana,  October  15. 

Mr.  Walker  testified  that  upon  receiving  the  notice  from  Dr.  White, 
he  immediately  took  steps  to  have  a  most  careful  ante-mortem 


1915.] 


HOUSE  —  No.  1751. 


9 


examination  made  of  any  animal  that  arrived  in  Massachusetts  from 
New  York.  While  this  was  a  precautionary  measure  and  shows  that 
the  commissioner  feared  that  the  disease  might  come  by  way  of  New 
York  State,  it  was  not  a  drastic  enough  step  to  be  taken  at  that  time. 
If  the  quarantine  had  been  declared  immediately  upon  receiving  the 
information  dated  October  21,  it  is  probable  that  Massachusetts  would 
have  been  saved  a  great  expense.  It  was  negligence  on  the  part  of 
the  commissioner  to  omit  to  verify  the  reports  and  rumors  he  had  re¬ 
ceived  of  the  existence  of  the  disease  in  other  States. 

According  to  a  statement  of  Mr.  Walker,  the  first  case  of  foot-and- 
mouth  disease  in  Massachusetts  was  reported  by  a  telegram  dated 
Nov.  5,  1914,  signed  by  Dr.  Henry  E.  Paige  of  Amherst,  which  stated 
that  the  disease  probably  existed  in  the  herd  of  George  L.  Henry  of 
Amherst.  Mr.  Walker’s  testimony  regarding  his  visit  on  the  next  day, 
in  company  with  Dr.  James  T.  Ryder,  to  the  herd  of  George  L.  Henry, 
where  the  disease  was  diagnosed,  gives  the  commissioner’s  own  version 
as  to  how  the  epidemic  found  its  way  into  this  State.  He  say  its 
was  — 

Determined  through  our  conversation  with  Mr.  Ilenry  that  the  cattle  in  his 
herd  were  a  part  of  a  shipment  that  was  made  from  Oneida,  N.  Y.,  to  Brighton, 
from  which  place  the  animals  in  which,  he  found  the  disease  had  been  shipped 
to  Amherst. 

We  concluded  that  there  was  every  probability  that,  inasmuch  as  the  infec¬ 
tion  must  have  existed  in  the  cattle  at  the  time  they  were  in  Brighton,  the 
exposure  had  infected  other  cattle,  and  we  made  it  our  first  business  to  locate 
the  herds  to  which  cattle  had  been  distributed  from  Brighton  on  October  28  and 
November  4,  with  the  result  that  we  eventually  located  40  herds  of  cattle  to 
which  it  is  more  than  probable  the  infection  was  spread  to  Brighton. 

The  disease  once  in  Massachusetts,  this  commission  feels  that  the 
business  methods  adopted  by  Commissioner  Walker  are  open  to 
criticism.  He  is  clearly  empowered  under  section  6,  chapter  90  of  the 
Revised  Laws,  and  amendment  thereto,  to  act  promptly  in  relation 
to  animals  affected  with  a  contagious  disease.  Attention  is  directed  to 
the  following  portion  of  section  6,  chapter  90,  Revised  Laws:  — 

Section  0.  If  the  board  (commissioner)  or  any  one  of  its  members  or  agents, 
by  examination  of  a  case  of  contagious  disease  of  domestic  animals,  is  of  opinion 
that  the  public  good  so  requires,  it  or  he  shall  cause  the  diseased  animal  to  be 
securely  isolated  or  to  be  killed  without  appraisal  or  payment.  .  .  . 

Notwithstanding  the  provisions  of  law,  Mr.  Walker  proceeded  to  put 
in  force  methods  that  were  in  direct  violation  of  the  statutory  pro¬ 
visions  governing  the  handling  of  contagious  diseases  in  animals. 
He  proceeded  without  statutory  authority  and  entered  into  an  agree- 


10 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


ment  with  the  Federal  authorities  to  create  a  board  of  appraisers  com¬ 
posed  of  one  Federal  and  one  State  appraiser,  whose  plan  of  work 
was  based  upon  Mr.  Walker’s  instructions  and  advice.  Otis  H.  For- 
bush  of  Acton,  suggested  and  recommended  by  Commissioner  Walker 
as  a  Federal  appraiser,  was  accepted  by  the  United  States  Bureau  of 
Animal  Industry  as  its  representative;  Myron  T.  Carrigan  of  Concord, 
a  business  partner  of  Commissioner  Walker,  was  selected  by  him  to 
act  as  appraiser  for  the  State.  Neither  of  the  board  of  appraisers  is  a 
veterinarian. 

The  arrangement  to  have  the  Commonwealth  and  the  Federal 
government  equally  represented  on  the  board  of  appraisers  was  due  to 
an  agreement  whereby  the  State  and  Federal  government  should  share 
the  expense  of  suppressing  the  disease.  Attention  is  called  to  a  letter, 
dated  Nov.  6,  1914,  from  the  United  States  Department  of  Agri¬ 
culture,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industrjq  Washington,  D.  C.,  to  Com¬ 
missioner  Walker,  in  which  terms  of  agreement  for  sharing  expense  are 
outlined  by  that  bureau.  A  copy  of  the  letter  is  appended.  The 
second  communication,  a  copy  of  which  is  appended,  is  an  order 
passed  by  the  Governor  and  Council  on  November  11,  authorizing  the 
acceptance  of  the  proposal  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry. 

In  their  work  the  appraisers  have  turned  over  to  Commissioner 
Walker  no  data  or  facts  concerning  their  appraisals  other  than  the 
number  of  cattle  and  live  stock  and  the  estimated  value  of  same. 
In  case  of  later  disagreements  or  legal  complications  the  State  would 
not  have  such  information  as  would  be  absolutely  necessary  in  de¬ 
termining  the  value  of  animals  killed  or  as  to  the  length  of  time  such 
animals  were  owned  in  the  Commonwealth. 

Furthermore,  the  form  which  is  used  by  the  appraisers  and  signed 
bv  them  and  the  owner  is  virtually  a  bill  of  sale,  and  as  such  had  no 
business  to  be  in  use.  It  was  issued  without  first  being  submitted  to 
the  Attorney-General.  It  reads  as  follows:  — 

The  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts, 

Office  of  Department  of  Animal  Industry, 
State  House,  Boston. 

. (Place) 

. . (Date) 

This  is  to  certify  that  I  have  this  day  sold  the  United  States  Department  of 

Agriculture  and  the  Massachusetts  Department  of  Animal  Industry . 

affected  with  or  exposed  to  foot-and-mouth  disease,  at  an  appraisal  of .  . . 

dollars,  sound  value,  of  which  I  agree  to  accept  50  per  cent,  as  compensation 
on  the  part  of  the  Commonwealth. 

(Signed)  . . . 

....  .  _ .  .  .  (Owner.) 

(Signed) . . .  ^ ....  ... . ....... . 

(Appraiser.) 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


11 


The  commissioner’s  unbusinesslike  methods  are  emphasized  by  the 
fact  that  notwithstanding  he  had  no  authority  under  existing  lawrs  to 
make  appraisals  for  animals  killed  on  account  of  foot-and-mouth 
disease,  he  drew  up  a  form,  in  substance  a  bill  of  sale,  without  sub¬ 
mitting  same  to  the  Attorney-General.  He  states  that  he  relied  upon 
private  counsel.  Since  Mr.  Walker’s  conference  with  this  commission 
on  December  14,  the  form  referred  to  has  been  discontinued  and  a  new 
form  substituted. 

The  following  is  a  detail  of  the  aggregate  already  suggested:  — 


The  total  number  of  slaughtered  cattle, . 1,101 

The  total  number  of  slaughtered  fowl,  . . 1,687 

The  total  number  of  slaughtered  hogs, . 2,360 

The  total  number  of  slaughtered  goats, .  4 

The  total  number  of  slaughtered  sheep, .  9 


Total  number  killed, . .  .  .5,161 


No  payments  have  yet  been  made  nor  have  owmers  of  slaughtered 
stock  been  given  any  definite  information  as  to  when  reimbursement 
will  come.  x4n  expenditure  of  $6,544.20  to  provide  for  the  incidental 
work  in  connection  with  the  stamping  out  of  the  foot-and-mouth 
disease  has  been  paid  from  the  regular  maintenance  appropriation  for 
the  fiscal  year  1914. 

This  commission  finds  that  in  every  instance  investigated  the 
appraised  value  of  live  stock  is  greatly  in  excess  of  the  assessed  value. 
The  appraised  maximum  value  of  a  cow  was  $88  and  the  minimum  $49. 
It  is  well  to  note  that  in  cases  where  tubercular-infected  cattle  have 
been  killed,  a  statutory  maximum  of  $40  is  allowed. 

Myron  T.  Carrigan  of  Concord,  the  appraiser  representing  the  State, 
appeared  before  this  commission  and  testified  that  he  is  a  business 
partner  with  Commissioner  Walker  in  the  buying  and  selling  of 
thoroughbred  cattle.  He  estimates  that  their  annual  business  is 
between  $1,000  and  $2,000.  This  commission  does  not  intend  to 
criticize  the  honesty  or  integrity  of  Mr.  Carrigan,  but  it  does  suggest 
that  such  an  appointment  leaves  the  Commissioner  of  Animal  In¬ 
dustry  open  to  a  just  criticism.  The  remuneration  of  Mr.  Carrigan  is 
$10  a  day  and  expenses.  According  to  Mr.  Carrigan’s  testimony  the 
appraisers  estimate  the  value  of  the  live  stock  and  return  their  finding 
to  the  State  department,  but  in  no  instance  did  the  board  of  appraisers 
attempt  to  obtain  the  assessed  value  of  the  stock.  Moreover  he 
stated  that  the  appraised  value  of  cowrs  was  based  upon  a  dairy  value; 
and  notwithstanding  this,  the  amount  of  milk  given  by  each  cow  was 


12  ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY.  [Feb. 

# 

in  each  instance  based  upon  the  word  of  the  herdsman  or  owner, 
without  an  effort  of  verification  from  records. 

According  to  Commissioner  Walker’s  statement,  some  of  the  cattle 
owned  by  George  L.  Henry  of  Amherst  had  not  been  in  his  pos¬ 
session  over  a  week,  and  yet  they  were  appraised  and  provision  made 
for  reimbursement. 

Again,  although  Commissioner  Walker  is  not  a  veterinarian,  he  said 
in  his  testimony  before  this  commission,  “  Dr.  Ryder  and  myself  made 
an  examination  of  cattle  and  confirmed  diagnosis  made  by  Dr.  Paige.” 

On  Monday,  November  9,  Commissioner  Walker  went  to  Washing¬ 
ton  to  confer  with  Chief  Melvin  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture. 
He  states:  “I  took  up  with  Dr.  Melvin  the  problem  in  Massachusetts, 
the  principal  feature  of  which,  it  seems  to  me,  was  a  satisfactory  and 
proper  adjustment  of  the  damages  that  would  result  from  the  presence 
of  the  disease  in  Massachusetts.” 

The  method  has  been  to  kill  all  cows  in  a  herd  where  any  cases  of 
disease  existed.  No  autopsy  has  been  held  on  cows  not  believed  to  be 
diseased.  The  unaffected  cows  were  killed  as  a  precautionary  measure. 
This  policy  of  total  annihilation  has  proved  most  expensive  and  does 
not  seem  warranted. 

According  to  Commissioner  Walker’s  testimony,  there  have  been  48 
herds  infected  in  this  State,  eight  of  which,  in  his  own  words,  “  As  near 
as  we  can  estimate  they  became  infected  because  of  the  careless  move¬ 
ment  of  the  people  associated  with  the  herds.” 

The  amount  for  which  the  State  will  eventually  be  responsible  is  still 
further  complicated.  It  was  agreed  that  the  State  and  the  Federal 
Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  should  appoint  jointly  a  property  appraiser 
whose  duty  should  be  to  estimate  the  damage  done  to  property  other 
than  live  stock.  While  it  was  the  custom  of  the  appraisers  of  live 
stock  to  view  condemned  or  diseased  cattle  for  purposes  of  appraisal 
before  they  were  slaughtered,  no  property  appraiser  viewed  any  build¬ 
ing  or  any  other  property  destroyed  or  damaged  by  agents  of  the 
Department  of  Animal  Industry.  The  property  appraiser  had  not 
even  been  appointed  up  to  the  time  when  the  epidemic  was  supposed 
to  have  been  stamped  out.  There  is  no  detail  or  documentary  evi¬ 
dence  showing  the  extent  of  the  damage  or  destruction  of  property  by 
the  agents  of  the  Department  of  Animal  Industry.  It  will  be  almost 
impossible  for  the  property  appraiser  to  measure  or  figure  the  extent 
of  the  damage  and  to  estimate  its  value.  There  is  opportunity  for  the 
Commonwealth  to  suffer  by  this  arrangement  owing  to  changes  in  the 
condition  of  the  property. 

In  conclusion,  this  commission  finds  that  the  expense  occasioned  the 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


13 


Commonwealth  because  of  the  epidemic  is  problematical,  and  this 
because  of  the  utter  lack  of  detailed  documentary  information  which, 
had  proper  business  methods  obtained  in  the  Department  of  Animal 
Industry,  would  have  been  gathered,  compiled  and  utilized. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

COMMISSION  ON  ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY, 

Francis  X.  Tyrrell,  Chairman, 
Thomas  W.  White. 

Russell  A.  Wood. 


United  States  Department  of  Agriculture, 

Bureau  of  Animal  Industry, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  Nov.  6,  1914. 

Address  repty  to  Chief  of  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  and  refer  to  U.  251.20. 

Mr.  Fred  F.  Walker,  Commissioner  of  Animal  Industry,  Boston,  Mass. 

Sir:  —  Concerning  the  outbreak  of  foot-and-mouth  disease,  you  are 
advised  that  with  Ohio,  Wisconsin,  Massachusetts  and  Iowa  added  to 
the  list,  there  are  now  ten  States  under  quarantine  to  date  on  account 
of  the  presence  of  this  disease.  Please  find  inclosed  B.  A.  I.  Order 
229,  and  orders  including  Wisconsin,  Massachusetts,  Ohio  and  Iowa 
are  issuing. 

The  department  is  calling  in  all  of  its  men  possible  from  other  lines 
of  work,  and  putting  them  at  foot-and-mouth  disease  eradication,  just 
as  rapidly  as  it  can  do  so.  Until  we  can  get  men  in  the  field  in  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  please  make  your  best  endeavor  to  limit  its  spread,  as  the 
present  outbreak  is  the  worst  this  country  has  ever  experienced,  and  is 
going  to  require  the  most  earnest  and  intelligent  work  by  the  State,  as 
well  as  by  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry. 

A  rigid  State  quarantine  should  be  promptly  inaugurated  on  all 
premises  where  the  disease  is  found,  as  well  as  on  the  highways  leading 
by  and  into  infected  farms,  to  prevent  the  movement,  trailing  or 
driving  of  cattle,  sheep,  other  ruminants  and  swine  over  such  highways. 

There  appears  to  be  a  tendency  in  most  infected  localities,  on  the 
part  of  veterinarians  as  well  as  others,  through  acquaintance,  friend¬ 
ship  or  position,  to  claim  the  privilege  of  seeing  cases  of  the  disease. 
It  is  therefore  important  that  veterinarians  and  owners  be  instructed 
in  the  matter  of  such  dangers. 

Veterinarians  engaged  in  making  inspections  should  be  equipped  with 


14 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


rubber  coats,  hats,  gloves,  boots,  and  bichloride  of  mercury  tablets, 
and  directed  in  their  conscientious  use. 

The  bureau  is  glad  that  it  has  you  to  look  after  the  work  in  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  as  3rour  training  and  judgment  are  considered  a  valuable  asset 
for  success  through  efficient  co-operation. 

The  plan  under  which  the  department  is  operating  in  the  various 
States  is  as  follows:  — 

The  department  will  pay  50  per  cent,  of  the  appraised  value  of 
slaughtered  live  stock,  destroyed  hay,  straw  and  parts  of  stables,  50 
per  cent,  of  disinfecting  expenses,  digging  and  burial  expenses,  and  will 
pay  all  salaries  of  bureau  employees,  their  livery  hire  as  may  be 
necessary,  traveling  and  subsistence  expenses,  and  rental  of  offices, 
which  will  practically  amount  to  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  expenses 
being  borne  by  the  government. 

Please  present  this  matter  to  the  Governor  for  his  approval  and 
agreement,  as  applying  to  the  State  of  Massachusetts. 

Respectfully, 


Inclosure. 


(Signed)  J.  R.  MOHLER, 
Acting  Chief  of  Bureau. 


The  Commomvealth  of  Massachusetts, 

Council  Chamber,  Boston,  Nov.  11,  1914. 

Mr.  Fred  F.  Walker,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry ,  State  House,  Boston. 

Dear  Sir:  —  At  a  meeting  of  the  Governor  and  Council  held  to¬ 
day,  the  proposal  submitted  by  you  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of 
Animal  Industry,  —  to  pay  50  per  cent,  of  the  appraised  value  of  live 
stock,  destroyed  hay,  straw  and  parts  of  stables,  50  per  cent,  of 
disinfecting  expenses,  digging  and  burial  expenses,  to  pay  all  salaries  of 
bureau  employees,  their  livery  hire,  traveling  and  subsistence  ex¬ 
penses  and  rental  of  offices,  —  was  approved,  and  you  were  au¬ 
thorized  to  accept  in  the  name  of  the  Commonwealth  the  foregoing 
agreement. 

Yours  respectfully, 

(Signed)  E.  F.  HAMLIN, 

Executive  Secretary. 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — Xo.  1751. 


15 


Chapter  90,  Revised  Laws. 

Section  6.  If  the  board  or  any  one  of  its  members  or  agents,  by  examina¬ 
tion  of  a  case  of  contagious  disease  of  domestic  animals,  is  of  tbe  opinion  that 
the  public  good  so  requires,  it  or  ne  shall  cause  the  diseased  animal  to  be  securely 
isolated  or  to  be  killed  without  appraisal  or  payment.  An  order  for  killing  shall 
be  issued  in  writing  by  the  board  or  any  of  its  members,  may  be  directed  to  an 
inspector  or  other  person,  and  shall  contain  such  direction  as  to  the  exam¬ 
ination  and  disposal  of  the  carcass  and  the  cleansing  and  disinfection  of  the 
premises  where  such  animal  was  condemned  as  the  board  or  commissioner  con¬ 
sider  expedient.  A  reasonable  amount  may  be  paid  from  the  treasury  of  the 
commonwealth  for  the  expense  of  such  killing  and  burial.  If,  thereafter,  it 
appears,  upon  post-mortem  examination  or  otherwise,  that  such  animal  was 
free  from  the  disease  for  which  it  was  condemned,  a  reasonable  amount  therefor 
shall  be  paid  to  the  owner  by  the  commonwealth.  If  any  cattle  which  are  con¬ 
demned  as  afflicted  with  tuberculosis  are  killed  under  the  provisions  of  this 
section,  the  full  value  thereof  at  the  time  of  condemnation,  not  exceeding  forty 
dollars  for  anj^  one  animal,  shall  be  paid  to  the  owner  by  the  commonwealth  if 
such  animal  has  been  owned  within  the  commonwealth  six  consecutive  months 
prior  to  being  killed,  or  if  it  has  been  inspected  and  satisfactory  proof  has  been 
furnished  to  the  board  by  certificate  or  otherwise  that  it  is  free  from  disease, 
and  if  the  owner  has  not  prior  thereto,  in  the  opinion  of  the  board,  by  wilful 
act  or  neglect,  contributed  to  the  spread  of  tuberculosis;  but  such  decision  shall 
not  deprive  the  owner  of  the  right  of  arbitration  as  hereinafter  provided. 

Section  6,  Chapter  90,  Revised  Laws,  extended  Chapter  646,  Acts  of  1913. 

An  Act  relative  to  Compensation  to  the  Owners  of  Animals  killed  on 
Account  of  being  afflicted  with  Glanders. 

Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  as  follows: 

Section  1.  If  any  horses,  asses  or  mules  -which  are  condemned  as  afflicted 
with  glanders  are  killed,  under  the  provisions  of  section  six  of  chapter  ninety 
of  the  Revised  Law's  the  full  value  thereof  at  the  time  of  condemnation,  not 
exceeding  fifty  dollars,  for  any  one  animal,,  shall  be  paid  to  the  owner  by  the 
commonwealth,  if  such  animal  was  owned  within  the  commonwealth  twelve 
consecutive  months  prior  to  being  killed,  and  if  the  owner  thereof  has  not,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  commissioner  of  animal  industry,  contributed  to  the  spread 
of  glanders  by  any  wilful  act  or  neglect. 

Section  2.  If  an  owner  entitled  to  compensation  under  the  provisions  of 
this  act  cannot  agree  with  the  commissioner  of  animal  industry  as  to  the  value 
of  the  animal  killed,  the  value  shall  be  determined  by  arbitration  in  the  manner 
provided  by  section  tw'enty-six  of  chapter  ninety  of  the  Revised  Law's. 


16 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


TRANSCRIPT  OF  NOTES  TAKEN  AT  THE  HEARING  GIVEN  BY 
THE  COMMISSION  ON  ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY  TO  MR. 
FRED  F.  WALKER,  COMMISSIONER  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY,  AT 
ROOM  110,  STATE  HOUSE,  BOSTON,  ON  MONDAY,  DECEMBER 
14,  1914,  AT  2.30  P.M. 


The  three  members  of  the  Commission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency 

*/  %, 

were  present;  Mr.  Fred  F.  Walker  was  also  present. 

Chairman  Tyrrell.  In  opening,  Mr.  Walker,  I  would  like  to  have 
you  make  a  statement  to  this  commission  covering  in  brief  the  history 
of  the  hoof-and-mouth  disease,  and  in  doing  that  I  would  like  to  have 
you  cover  it  in  detail  from  Alpha  to  Omega,  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end,  or,  if  the  end  is  not  in  sight,  up  to  the  present  time. 

Mr.  Walker.  You  mean  in  so  far  as  it  applies  to  Massachusetts? 

Mr.  Tyrrell.  Yes. 

Mr.  Walker.  The  first  intimation  that  I  had  of  the  presence  of 
the  disease  in  Massachusetts  was  received  on  November  5,  about  12 
o’clock,  when  I  was  in  receipt  of  a  telegram  from  Dr.  Henry  E.  Paige 
of  Amherst  that  stated  — •  To  be  exact  its  words  were:  “James  and  I 
feel  confident  of  the  presence  of  foot-and-mouth  disease  in  the  George 
Henry  herd,  Amherst.”  James,  by  the  way,  is  his  brother,  Dr.  James 
P.  Paige  of  Amherst.  Immediately  on  receipt  of  that  information 
from  Dr.  Paige,  I  communicated  with  Dr.  James  T.  Ryder,  who  is  in 
charge  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  stationed  in  Boston, 
advising  him  of  the  notification,  and  arranged  with  him  to  go  to 
Amherst.  We  tried  to  arrange  to  go  that  afternoon,  but  found  there 
was  no  train  that  would  take  us  there  before  dark,  so  we  arranged  to 
go  the  following  morning  on  the  8.07  train,  which  we  did. 

We  were  met  by  Dr.  Paige  at  the  station  in  Amherst  and  went 
directly  to  the  farm  of  George  L.  Henry,  where  Dr.  Ryder  and  myself 
made  an  examination  of  the  cattle  and  confirmed  the  diagnosis  made 
by  the  Doctors  Paige.  Dr.  Ryder  and  myself  returned  to  Boston,  and 
that  very  night  we  began  securing  from  the  several  dealers  at  Brighton 
a  sales  list  covering  the  two  previous  weeks  in  Brighton,  it  having 
been  determined  through  our  conversation  with  Mr.  Henry  that  the 
cattle  in  his  herd  were  a  part  of  a  shipment  that  was  made  from 
Oneida,  N.  Y.,  to  Brighton,  from  which  place  the  animals  in  which 
we  found  the  disease  had  been  shipped  to  Amherst. 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


17 


We  concluded  that  there  was  every  probability  that,  inasmuch  as  the 
infection  must  have  existed  in  the  cattle  at  the  time  they  were  in 
Brighton,  the  exposure  had  infected  other  cattle,  and  we  made  it  our 
first  business  to  locate  the  herds  to  which  cattle  had  been  distributed 
from  Brighton  on  October  28  and  November  4,  with  the  result  that 
we  eventually  located  40  herds  of  cattle  to  which  it  is  more  than 
probable  the  infection  was  spread  from  Brighton. 

There  have  been  48  herds  infected  in  the  State,  8  of  which,  as  near 
as  we  can  estimate  it,  became  infected  because  of  the  careless  move¬ 
ment  of  the  people  associated  with  the  herds,  either  owners  or  helpers 
about  them,  who,  because  of  their  curiosity,  had  gone  to  other  herds 
in  which  infection  existed  and  had  doubtless,  in  our  opinion,  carried 
i*  to  their  own  herds  eventually. 

Mr.  Wood.  That  would  be  negligence,  wouldn’t  it? 

Mr.  Walker.  It  would  be  perhaps  carelessness  or  lack  of  in¬ 
formation  on  their  part.  Of  course,  you  gentlemen  perhaps  will 
understand  that  it  is  very  difficult  —  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for 
me  at  this  time  or  for  anv  one  to  sav  in  the  first  instance  how  the 
disease  came  to  Massachusetts,  because  it  has  not  been  definitely  de¬ 
termined.  Our  best  opinion  is  that  it  came  by  way  of  this  shipment 
to  which  I  have  referred.  Our  best  opinion  in  reference  to  the  herds 
that  have  become  infected,  other  than  those  that  were  exposed  in 
Brighton,  is  that  some  member  of  the  family  or  of  the  help  have 
visited  other  farms,  or  possibly  some  outsider  who  had  been  to  an 
infected  farm  had  come  there  to  visit,  or  something  of  that  kind. 

It  seemed  to  me,  immediately  I  knew  that  the  disease  was  reallv  in 
the  State,  that  the  most  speedy  methods  for  its  control  should  be 
adopted.  However,  I  felt  that  this  was  a  matter  of  State  and  national 
importance,  and  I  made  application  to  the  executive  department  for  a 
hearing  before  the  Governor  and  Council  for  the  purpose  of  the 
passage  of  an  order  which  would  satisfactorily  quarantine  the  different 
farms  in  the  State.  The  Governor  appeared  to  appreciate  the  serious¬ 
ness  of  the  situation  and  agreed  to  call  a  special  session  of  the  Council 
for  the  Saturday  afternoon  following  the  Thursday  that  I  was  in 
Amherst. 

Realizing  that  this  was  a  matter  of  State  and  national  importance, 
and  wishing  to  do  the  very  wisest  thing  possible,  I  asked  some  twenty- 
five  men  representing  the  largest  stock-owning  and  stock-handling 
industries,  slaughtering  establishments,  and  also  representing  the 
veterinary  profession,  to  meet  me  at  the  State  House  Saturday  fore¬ 
noon,  in  order  that  I  might  put  the  situation  before  them  and  ask  their 
advice  in  reference  to  the  subject. 


18 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


Mr.  Tyrrell.  \ou  mean  the  forenoon  of  the  afternoon  that  you 
appeared  before  the  Governor  and  Council,  which  was  November  7. 

Mr.  Walker.  I  am  just  a  little  confused  on  the  dates.  Thursday 
was  the  5th,  I  am  very  sure.  Friday  was  the  6th  and  Saturday  the 
7th.  I  took  the  liberty  to  say  to  those  people  that  I  had  asked  them 
to  come  there  to  act  as  a  committee  of  one  in  advising  me  as  to  my 
clear  course  under  the  present  conditions,  and  I  frankly  stated  to  them 
that  at  the  conclusion  of  their  remarks  I  should,  of  course,  reserve  the 
right  to  do  as  I  saw  fit,  but  I  wanted  their  opinion  on  the  subject. 
I  had  formed  a  very  definite  idea  as  to  just  what  I  should  do.  I 
realized  that  such  action  would  involve  many  enterprises  of  great 
importance  in  the  State,  and  I  wanted  to  give  them  an  opportunity, 
the  representatives  of  those  enterprises,  of  placing  before  me  any 
objections  that  they  might  feel  in  reference  to  the  proposed  action  on 
my  part,  in  order  that  I  might  take  them  under  consideration  before 
submitting  my  plan  to  the  Governor.  To  save  time,  I  may  say  that 
that  assembly,  highly  representative  as  it  was,  agreed  unanimously  on 
the  plan  that  I  have  previously  outlined  and  to  which  I  referred  there, 
which  was  to  place  the  State  under  the  strictest  sort  of  quarantine. 
The  quarantine  was  to  apply  to  every  animal  in  the  State  and  to 
every  farm  in  the  State,  and  would  prevent  the  movement  of  any 
animal  on  the  part  of  any  owner  from  one  building  to  another,  pro¬ 
vided  that  movement  had  to  be  made  on  any  public  highway  or  by-way. 

I  came  before  the  Governor  and  a  delegation  of  the  Council  that 
Saturdav  afternoon  about  1.50  o’clock,  and  the  Governor  and  Council 
unanimously  approved  an  order  that  I  had  submitted  which  provided 
as  I  have  outlined. 

In  the  meantime,  our  several  agents  throughout  the  State  were  being 
equipped  with  rubber  outfits  and  furnished  instructions  as  fast  as 
they  were  assembled  as  to  what  barns  to  go  to  in  the  several  sections 
of  the  State;  and,  may  it  be  said  to  the  credit  of  the  stockmen  in 
Brighton,  a  most  complete  list  was  furnished  us  of  their  sales.  Every 
co-operation  possible  was  enjoyed  on  our  part  from  them,  and  we 
began  the  most  strenuous  task  of  locating  and  examining  some  2,000 
cows  that  had  been  distributed  from  Brighton  within  the  two  weeks. 
Perhaps  that  is  an  overestimate.  I  should  say  that  1,800  would  be 
more  correct.  As  a  result,  as  I  have  before  stated,  we  located  the 
disease  in  some  40  herds  in  which  there  were  cows  that  had  come 
from  Brighton  within  the  two  weeks. 

The  following  Monday,  in  view  of  the  enormity  of  the  situation,  it 
seemed  to  me  absolutelv  necessarv  that  I  should  be  in  direct  touch 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


19 


with  the  authorities  in  charge  of  the  live-stock  sanitary  work  at 
Washington,  and  accordingly  I  wired  them  to  ascertain  if  Chief 
Melvin  or  his  assistant  would  be  at  the  office  on  Tuesday.  I  received 
notification  that  they  would  be,  and  I  left  for  Washington  Monday 
night.  I  took  up  with  Dr.  Melvin  the  problem  in  Massachusetts,  the 
principal  feature  of  which,  it  seemed  to  me,  was  a  satisfactory  and 
proper  adjustment  of  the  damages  that  would  result  from  the  presence 
of  the  disease  in  Massachusetts.  I  outlined  my  plans  to  Dr.  Melvin, 
which  were,  as  had  been  the  custom  in  other  States,  that  an  appraiser 
should  be  appointed  by  the  government  and  one  by  the  State  to  adjust 
the  value  of  live  stock  destroyed. 

I  might  say  right  here  that  on  the  occasion  of  a  previous  outbreak 
in  Massachusetts,  although  there  were  official  appraisers,  it  had  been 
the  custom  of  the  manager  of  affairs  at  that  time  to  direct  the  agent, 
the  veterinary  who  went  out  on  the  job  and  who  discovered  the  case, 
to  make  an  appraisal  with  the  owner  and  to  clean  up  the  business  on 
his  own  hook.  I  happen  to  know  that  in  some  instances  that  appraisal 
was  not  at  all  satisfactory  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  owner.  In  some 
instances  it  was  not  at  all  satisfactory  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  State 
and  the  nation.  Therefore,  it  seemed  to  me  that  this  matter  of 
appraisal  was  of  great  importance  from  the  viewpoint  of  our  State 
and  our  citizens,  and  therefore  I  recommended  to  Dr.  Melvin  that 
two  appraisers  be  appointed,  who  should  be  the  most  highly  qualified 
men  available  in  their  line,  who  should  be  men  of  absolute  and  un¬ 
questioned  integrity,  and  who,  above  and  beyond  everything  else, 
should  have  no  personal  interest  in  reference  to  the  appraisal  except 
to  be  just  to  the  owner,  the  Commonwealth  and  the  nation.  Dr. 
Melvin  asked  me  if  I  had  any  recommendations  to  make  as  to  who 
should  be  appointed  on  the  part  of  the  nation,  and  I  told  him  that  I 
had.  I  accordingly  recommended  Mr.  Otis  H.  Forbush  of  Acton. 
Perhaps  I  should  not  say  what  Dr.  Melvin  said.  Does  that  interest 
you?  Dr.  Melvin  later  communicated  with  his  agent  in  Boston  and 
asked  him  to  investigate  the  recommendation  made  by  me.  As  a 
result  of  the  investigation  of  Dr.  Henry  E.  Brown,  who  was  then  in 
charge  of  the  United  States  government  foot-and-mouth  work  in  this 
section  of  the  State,  Mr.  Forbush  was  eventually  appointed  by  the 
government.  Mr.  Myron  T.  Carrigan  of  Concord  was  named  by 
me  to  act  as  an  appraiser  on  the  part  of  the  State. 

Mr.  Wood.  Is  he  a  veterinary? 

Mr.  YV  alker.  He  is  not  —  neither  of  them  are.  Thev  were  ad- 

* 

vised,  these  two  appraisers,  that  they  were  to  meet  the  owner  of  the 


20 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


property  and,  if  possible,  act  with  him  as  a  board  of  appraisers,  in 
order  to  avoid  and  eliminate  any  possibility  of  later  contention  that 
they  were  not  properly  treated,  and  in  order  that  if  the  appraisal 
made  by  these  men  was  not  up  to  his  expectation,  he  might  know 
from  them  why  they  made  the  appraisal  as  they  did.  This  board  of 
appraisers,  these  two  appraisers  rather,  went  to  Amherst.  I  cannot 
give  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  exact  dates  right  off  hand. 

Mr.  Tyrrell.  That  is  not  material. 

Mr.  Walker.  They  went  there,  I  think,  the  following  Thursday, 
in  order  that  they  might  start  on  the  work.  I  went  out  with  them, 
introduced  them  to  the  first  man  whose  property  they  were  to  look 
over,  and  in  a  general  way,  so  far  as  I  knew,  explained  to  the  owner 
and  the  appraisers  what  course  would  probably  be  followed.  Whether 
or  not  the  appraisers  ever  adopted  my  plans  in  the  conduct  of  their 
work  I  do  not  know,  because  I  did  not  think  my  duties  extended 
beyond  instructing  them,  or  rather,  in  a  general  way,  advising  them. 

The  herds  at  Amherst,  North  Amherst  and  Granby  that  were  then 
known  to  be  affected  were  appraised  and  immediately  destroyed.  In 
connection  with  the  slaughter  of  these  cattle,  I  took  that  matter  up 
with  the  national  authorities  at  the  time  of  the  former  outbreak  in 
Massachusetts.  There  had  been  some  very  regrettable  experiences 
incident  to  the  slaughter  of  the  cattle,  because  of  the  fact  that  that 
slaughter  had  been  in  some  cases  in  the  hands  of  inexperienced  men, 
or  rather,  perhaps  young  men  who  had  not  had  any  experience  at  all, 
and  who  did  not  appreciate  the  seriousness  of  the  situation,  writh  the 
result  that  some  cattle  were  wounded  and  escaped,  and  some  were 
mutilated  in  various  ways,  all  of  which  was  to  the  discredit,  of  course, 
of  both  the  State  and  nation  who  were  carrying  on  the  work.  In 
order  to  avoid  any  such  possible  procedure  this  time,  I  arranged  with 
the  Federal  authorities  that  one  man  who  is  regularly  employed  in 
our  department  and  who  is  specially  qualified  for  such  work,  because 
he  has  been  for  many  years  of  his  life  a  butcher,  should  have  entire 
charge  of  the  slaughter,  and  where  it  was  possible  for  him  to  attend 
to  it  himself  that  he  should  do  so;  if  not,  that  he  should  delegate  some 
man  in  whom  he  had  confidence  to  do  the  work  right.  In  short,  I 
localized  the  responsibility  on  Agent  Charles  J.  Daly,  and  I  am  very 
proud  to  say  that  not  in  one  single  instance  has  there  been  the  slightest 
slip-up  so  far  as  the  slaughter  is  concerned.  Hardly  more  than  one 
bullet  has  been  used  on  any  animal,  and  in  a  very  few  cases  only  has 
our  work  been  supervised,  or  watched  rather,  by  the  agents  of  the 
Society  for  the  Prevention  of  Cruelty  to  Animals,  and  in  those  cases 
those  agents  have  commended  our  efforts  very  highly. 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


21 


Mr.  Tyrrell.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  communication  that 

_  *  3 

you  received  from  Dr.  Paige  of  Amherst  relative  to  the  Henry  herd 
being  affected  with  this  disease?  Was  it  a  telephonic  communication 
or  a  letter? 

Mr.  Walker.  It  was  a  telegram. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  Have  you  got  that  telegram?  A.  I  have 
at  the  office. 

Q.  What  was  the  date  of  that  telegram?  A*.  November  5. 

Q.  That  was  the  first  information  you  received  that  the  hoof-and- 
mouth  disease  was  in  Massachusetts?  A.  Yes,  or  even  suspected  of 
being  here. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  from  one  of  your  agents  a  communication  on 
October  21  stating  that  the  hoof-and-mouth  disease  was  found  in  a 
herd  at  Buffalo,  New  York?  A.  I  received  a  telegram  from  Dr. 
William  T.  White,  who  is  an  agent  of  our  department  and  who  was  in 
Albany  on  the  21st  of  October,  stating  that  he  had  been  advised  that 
the  foot-and-mouth  disease  existed  in  the  Buffalo  stockj^ards.  I  think 
those  were  the  words  of  the  telegram. 

I  immediately  called  up  the  office  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Animal 
Industry  at  Boston,  Dr.  Ryder  in  charge,  and  asked  him  if  he  had 
knowledge  of  the  existence  of  the  disease  in  Buffalo.  He  said  he  had 
not  heard  it  was  there.  Except  for  the  fact  that  Dr.  White  had  re¬ 
ferred  directly  to  Dr.  Mills  of  New  York,  who  is  State  veterinarian  for 
New  York,  I  should  have  been  inclined  to  believe  that  it  was  an 
erroneous  report  entirely,  and  in  the  absence  of  the  confirmation  of  the 
report  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Bureau,  as  they  had  supervision 
especially  over  the  Buffalo  stockyards,  and  are  the  authority  on  which 
we  depend  to  guard  our  lines,  our  State  lines,  you  understand.  How¬ 
ever,  realizing  the  seriousness  of  the  situation,  the  possible  seriousness, 
I  immediately  took  steps  to  make  the  most  careful  ante-mortem  exam¬ 
ination  of  any  animal  that  arrived  in  Massachusetts  from  New  York. 

Q.  Just  on  that  point  there.  The  law  provides  that  any  cattle 
coming  from  out  of  the  State  shall  be  thoroughly  examined  and  in¬ 
spected.  You  made  the  statement  that,  to  the  best  of  your  knowledge 
and  belief,  this  disease  was  brought  in  by  cattle  that  came  over  the 
New  York  line  into  the  Brighton  stockyards.  Why  wasn’t  the  disease 
determined  on  the  arrival  of  the  cattle  in  the  Brighton  stockyards 
prior  to  their  being  shipped  from  the  Brighton  stockyards  throughout 
the  State?  A.  Because,  Mr.  Tyrrell,  the  period  of  incubation  for  foot- 
and-mouth  disease  is  usually  estimated  at  from  3  to  25  days.  There 
was  not  the  slightest  evidence  of  the  presence  of  the  disease  in  those 
cattle  in  Brighton.  They  were,  because  of  my  earlier  advice  from 


9.9 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


New  York,  especially  carefully  examined,  —  earlier  advice  from  Dr. 
White,  —  not  only  as  they  are  usually  examined  by  the  tuberculin 
test,  but,  in  addition,  they  were  given  a  most  careful  ante-mortem  or 
physical  examination. 

Q.  What  is  the  date  of  the  last  shipment  of  the  New  York  cattle 
from  the  Brighton  stockyards?  A.  I  don’t  believe  I  understand  you, 
Mr.  Tyrrell.  I  might  say  for  your  information  that  there  is  a  great 
number  of  cattle  arriving  in  Brighton  every  week,  depending  some¬ 
what  upon  the  market.  There  is  quite  an  average  arrival  of  dairy 
cows,  —  cows  that  the  State  department  makes  examination  of,  —  and 
that  number  varies  from  350  to  700  perhaps.  At  that  particular 
time  of  year  there  are  quite  heavy  shipments,  and  there  are  in  the 
neighborhood  of  500  or  600  cattle  in  Brighton  every  week  from  various 
points.  Of  that  500  or  600,  possibly  there  may  have  been  50  from  the 
State  of  New  York,  there  may  have  been  100,  but  just  casually  esti¬ 
mating  I  would  say  there  were  perhaps  50.  There  is  George  Henry 
and  George  Smith  and  a  man  named  Trask.  Those  three  men  are  the 
principal  shippers  from  New  York,  and  they  usually  have  one  carload 
apiece  and  sometimes  two  carloads. 

Q.  Isn’t  it  fair  to  assume  that,  inasmuch  as  you  were  notified  by 
one  of  your  agents  as  early  as  October  21,  some  care  should  have  been 
exercised  in  the  shipments  from  New  York  State?  A.  Your  question, 
Mr.  Tyrrell,  smacks  of  a  declaration  that  I  have  seen  more  of  than  I 
want  to  and  more  of  than  I  appreciate,  because  it  is  not  quite  fair. 
I  don’t  mind  it  coming  from  you,  but  I  mind  it  coming  from  misin¬ 
formed  people  saying  that  I  was  notified  from  New  York.  Now,  the 
notification  that  I  had  from  New  York  was  of  just  the  same  character, 
if  you  call  it  a  notification,  as  you  would  receive  if  one  of  your  men 
were  out  about  the  State  and  observed  or  heard  something  that  would 
be  of  interest  to  you  as  commissioner  here.  It  was  not  an  official  com¬ 
munication  in  any  sense  of  the  word.  It  was  rather  a  friendly  tele¬ 
gram.  It  was  just  what  I  wanted  him  to  do  —  what  I  highly  approved 
of.  It  was  not,  as  has  been  intimated  in  some  newspapers,  an  official 
notification.  However,  immediately  on  the  receipt  of  that  notification 
we  will  call  it,  we  redoubled  our  efforts,  especially  in  reference  to  the 
New  York  shipments.  The  law  provides  that  these  animals  must  be 
examined  and  tested,  —  these  out-of-State  animals,  —  that  a  tuber¬ 
culin  test  and  a  physical  examination  must  be  made.  In  addition  to 
that,  I  had  instructed  our  men  in  charge  of  the  work  at  Brighton  to 
make  most  careful  ante-mortem  or  physical  examinations  of  all  these 
New  York  cows  that  came  in,  also  of  the  hogs  or  anything  that  might 
come  from  there,  in  order  that  if  there  should  be  a  case  we  would 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


23 


discover  it.  I  also  asked  the  co-operation  of  the  Federal  Bureau  to  an 
extent  that  we  had  never  enjoyed  before.  I  asked  them  to  delegate 
men  to  go  to  the  market  and  assist,  or  supplement  if  you  will,  our 
examination,  in  order  to  take  what  I  believed  was  all  the  precaution 
necessary  to  take  at  that  time,  and  in  order  to  prevent  the  distribu¬ 
tion  from  that  market  of  a  diseased  cow,  all  the  time  realizing  the 
possibility  that  there  might  be  a  case  in  the  incubative  form  that  we 
would  not  discover. 

Incidentally,  it  will  be  interesting  for  you  to  know,  I  am  sure,  that 
up  to  the  time  of  the  present  outbreak,  it  had  been  stated  positively 
to  me  by  the  government  officials,  they  having  a  great  deal  of  experi¬ 
ence  with  the  foot-and-mouth  disease,  and  I  recognizing  them  as  an 
authority,  that  the  incubative  stage  of  the  foot-and-mouth  disease  is 
from  three  to  six  days.  Now  it  is  said  by  those  same  authorities  that 
the  incubative  stage  is  reckoned  to  be  from  three  to  twenty-five  days. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  White).  How  long  had  Henry  of  Amherst  had  these 
cows  in  Brighton  before  you  knew  it?  A.  Just  off  hand,  they  were 
shipped  we  will  say  Thursday  of  this  week.  They  were  not  reported 
to  me  until  the  following  Saturday.  Just  a  week  he  had  them  up  there. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  What  was  the  earliest  date  of  your  com¬ 
municating  with  the  Federal  authorities  relative  to  the  foot-and-mouth 
disease?  A.  On  October  21,  when  I  got  this  wire  from  Dr.  White. 

Q.  Have  you  a  copy  of  that  communication?  A.  I  called  him  up 
on  the  telephone.  They  have  an  office  in  Boston,  with  which  we  are 
in  constant  touch. 

Q.  You  communicated  with  them  prior  to  November  6,  when  they 
communicated  with  you  and  admonished  you  to  be  careful  of  the 
disease?  A.  The  admonishing  was  the  other  way.  That  letter,  al¬ 
though  it  is  dated  November  6,  was  not  received  in  our  department 

until  November  8.  In  the  meantime  and  prior  to  its  receipt,  we  had 

started  on  our  own  initiative  a  State-wide  quarantine  that  is  much 
stiffer  and  better  than  that  recommended  by  them,  and  which  caused 
Dr.  Melvin  to  commend  me  most  highly. 

Q.  Are  you  permitting  cows  to  be  sold  now?  A.  Yes,  for  immediate 
slaughter,  and  in  the  non-infected  areas,  —  the  areas  in  which  the 
disease  has  not  developed  at  all  in  this  outbreak  or  any  other.  We 
are  allowing  the  movement  of  cattle  other  than  those  for  slaughter, 
but  only  under  a  permit  system,  under  the  provisions  of  the  order 
that  was  approved  by  the  Governor  and  Council,  which  order  states 

that  no  cattle  may  be  moved  except  by  permission  from  our  depart¬ 

ment. 

Q.  Is  Henry  to  be  reimbursed  for  the  cattle?  A.  They  have  been 


24 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


appraised.  Whether  or  not  he  will  be  reimbursed  depends  upon  the 
Legislature  and  Congress. 

Q.  Had  he  owned  them  six  months?  A.  He  had  not  owned  them 
ten  minutes  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Doesn’t  the  law  provide  that,  in  order  to  be  reimbursed  by  the 
Commonwealth,  a  person  must  be  the  owner  of  the  cattle  for  six 
months?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  acquaint  the  Governor  and  Council  of  that  fact  when  you 
went  before  them  prior  to  the  issuance  of  the  order  that  the  owners  of 
condemned  cattle  should  be  reimbursed  by  the  Commonwealth? 
A.  No;  I  don’t  know  as  I  can  make  my  attitude  before  the  Governor 
and  Council  qtiite  clear  to  you.  Perhaps  I  did  not  make  it  clear  to 
them,  but  I  think  I  did.  The  only  proposition  that  I  put  before  the 
Governor  and  Council  in  the  first  instance  was  this,  —  the  adoption  of 
an  order  for  quarantine;  and  later  I  had,  as  per  that  letter  there,  a 
communication  from  Washington,  outlining  the  proposed  plan  on  the 
part  of  the  National  Department  of  Agriculture,  to  the  effect  that  the 
government  should  eventually  pay  half  the  appraisal  and  the  State 
half,  and  that  communication  requests  that  I  get  the  sanction  of  the 
Governor  and  Council  to  such  an  agreement,  or  something  to  that 
effect.  I  took  that  letter  to  the  Governor  and  Council,  and  they,  I 
think,  fully  appreciated  that  it  was  not  quite  within  their  province  to 
say  whether  the  State  would  or  would  not  pay  50  per  cent.  However, 
they  did  advise  me  to  act  agreeably  to  the  suggestion  made  by  the 
National  Department  of  Agriculture,  which  suggestion,  gentlemen,  as 
I  understand  it,  does  not  carry  any  positive  implication  that  either 
the  nation  or  the  State  would  pay  anything  for  these  cattle. 

Now,  those  cattle  are  killed  and  buried  under  the  provision  of  our 
law  which  says,  “  Cattle  infected  with  or  exposed  to  a  contagious 
disease  may  be  killed  and  buried  without  appraisal  or  payment  there¬ 
for.”  This  whole  matter  of  appraisal  and  adjustment  of  this  affair  is 
per  that  agreement  that  you  just  handed  Mr.  White.  That  agreement 
the  owner  signs  and  it  is  accepted  by  him,  —  by  the  owner,  —  under 
the  clear  understanding  that  at  the  moment  he  signs  it  there  is  no  ob¬ 
ligation  on  the  part  of  the  Commonwealth  to  pay  him  a  cent. 

Q.  Who  authorized  the  issuance  of  this  certificate  marked  Exhibit  A? 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


25 


The  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts, 

Office  of  Department  of  Animal  Industry, 
State  House,  Boston. 


Fred  F.  Walker,  Commissioner. 


(Place) 

(Date) 


This  is  to  certify  that  I  have  this  day  sold  the  United  States  Department  of 

Agriculture  and  the  Massachusetts  Department  of  Animal  Industry . 

affected  with  or  exposed  to  foot-and-mouth  disease  at  an  appraisal  of . 

dollars,  sound  value,  of  which  I  agree  to  accept  50  per  cent,  as  compensation  on 
the  part  of  the  Commonwealth. 

(Signed) . . 

(Owner.) 

(Signed) . . 

(Appraiser.) 


Mr.  Walker.  I  did,  making  a  copy  of  the  agreement  offered  by  the 
Eederal  authorities,  and  a  similar  document  to  that  was  presented  to 
the  owner. 

Q.  Isn’t  that  virtually  a  bill  of  sale  from  the  owner  to  the  Common¬ 
wealth?  A.  It  is,  in  my  opinion.  However,  I  had  submitted  that 
before  any  of  them  were  signed. 

Q.  Submitted  them  to  whom,  Mr.  Walker?  x4.  To  a  lawyer  friend 
of  mine  whom  I  considered  an  authority  on  the  subject.  He  said  that 
there  was  nothing  in  connection  with  that  that  would  in  the  slightest 
way  involve  the  Commonwealth  in  an  obligation  to  the  owner. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Wood).  Who  was  the  lawyer?  A.  I  would  just  a  little 
rather  not  tell. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  You  know  the  powers  of  this  commission  at 
a  conference  —  any  information  must  be  forthcoming?  A.  Yes,  I  know. 

Q.  Who  in  your  opinion  is  the  legal  officer  of  the  Commonwealth? 
A.  The  Attorney-General. 

Q.  Why  wasn’t  this  referred  to  the  Attorney-General?  A.  I  will 
stand  for  it  if  you  say  I  erred  in  not  referring  it  to  the  Attorney-Gen¬ 
eral.  I  am  frank  to  say  that  at  the  time  this  whole  affair  was  precip¬ 
itated  and  put  into  execution  the  several  matters  were  rushed  through 
rather  hastily.  I  acted,  Mr.  Tyrrell,  in  reference  to  that  matter  prin¬ 
cipally  and  primarily  on  the  copy  of  the  Federal  government,  which 
copy  was  furnished  me  in  Washington  by  Dr.  Melvin,  and  the  explana¬ 
tion  was  there  made  to  me  by  Dr.  Melvin,  very  clearly,  that  in  the 
signing  of  this  agreement  on  the  part  of  the  owner  no  obligation  was 
assumed  by  either  the  Federal  government  or  the  State. 

Q.  The  Governor’s  Council  authorized  you  to  act  for  the  State  in 
this  matter?  A.  I  think  you  have  a  copy  of  the  order. 


26 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


[Mr.  Tyrrell  reads  order  of  the  Council,  marked  Exhibit  B.J 

Q.  You  were  authorized  to  act  as  an  agent  for  the  Commonwealth, 
and  you  gave  that  authority  to  your  appraiser  in  signing  this  docu¬ 
ment?  A.  My  best  understanding  and  that  of  the  owner  of  the  cattle 
is  that  that  is  simply  an  agreement  on  the  part  of  the  owner  to  accept 
the  appraisal  therein  described  in  the  event  of  funds  being  available 
to  meet  the  same. 

Q.  Is  this  commission  to  understand  that  you  view  that  document 
there  in  the  light  of  being  an  agreement  and  not  a  bill  of  sale?  A.  I 
do  most  certainlv. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Wood).  To  be  an  agreement  shouldn’t  your  name  be 
on  there  as  the  Commissioner  of  Animal  Industrv?  Shouldn’t  vour 
name  be  on  there  to  make  that  anything  like  a  legal  document?  A.  I 
understand  if  it  were  made  a  binding  legal  document  that  it  would 
have  to  have  the  signature  of  some  State  official. 

Mr.  Wood.  There  is  not  the  signature  of  a  single  State  official  on  it. 

Mr.  Tyrrell.  The  appraiser  is  the  agent  for  the  Commissioner  of 

Animal  Industrv. 

%! 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Wood).  Didn't  you  know  that  prior  to  the  outbreak 
of  this  disease  in  Massachusetts  the  disease  was  raging  in  Michigan 
on  August  1,  and  also  in  some  other  States?  A.  I  did  not  know  it 
until  about  October  15. 

Q.  What  States  did  you  know  it  was  raging  in  on  October  15?  A.  It 
was  first  announced  publicly  that  the  disease  had  been  discovered  at 
Niles,  Michigan  on  October  15.  That  was  the  general  announcement 
in  the  newspapers  throughout  the  State. 

Q.  What  other  States  did  you  understand  had  the  disease?  A.  I 
understand  it  was  in  Southern  Michigan  and  Northern  Indiana. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  it  was  in  Ohio?  A.  I  don't  recall 
that  at  that  time  it  had  been  officially  announced  as  being  in  Ohio. 

Q.  Do  we  have  cattle  coming  from  Michigan  and  Indiana  into 
Massachusetts?  A.  Very,  very  rarelv.  There  are  beef  cattle,  steers, 
etc.,  shipped  from  those  States,  from  Michigan,  Indiana  and  all  the 
western  States. 

Q.  Then  you  knew  on  October  15  that  States  from  which  Massa¬ 
chusetts  gets  live  stock  had  this  disease  in  them?  A.  Yes,  and  in  con¬ 
nection  with  that  inquiry  I  think  it  is  pertinent  that  I  say  to  you,  for 
your  information,  that  I  understand  my  duty  to  be  primarily  that  of 
a  State  officer,  to  guard  and  defend  the  live  stock  conditions  within  the 
State,  and  that  I  depend  almost  unqualifiedly  and  explicitly  upon  the 
National  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  to  protect  our  borders  from  ship¬ 
ments  from  infected  areas. 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — Xo.  1751. 


27 


Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  Mr.  Commissioner,  to  go  back  to  Exhibit  A, 
this  agreement  or  bill  of  sale — is  that  an  exact  copy  of  the  form  sent  to 
aggrieved  parties?  A.  Excuse  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  an  exact  copy 
of  the  supply  of  blanks  furnished  the  State’s  appraiser  when  he  goes 
out  to  make  an  appraisal,  and  on  which  he  gets  the  signature  of  the 
owner  of  the  property,  if  possible,  in  order  to  make  a  record  in  our 
office  that  on  the  date  mentioned  the  owner  of  the  cattle  agreed  to 
their  value  as  being  so  many  dollars. 

Q.  Then  it  is  a  fact  that  this  agreement  or  bill  of  sale  appears  on 
the  official  stationery  of  your  department?  A.  Yes,  it  is  on  there. 

Q.  Does  the  owner  who  signs  that  agreement  retain  a  copy  of  it? 
Are  there  two  copies  made?  A.  I  don’t  know  of  one  being  retained  by 
the  owner.  I  don’t  know  that  the  owner  ever  did  retain  a  copy. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Wood).  There  are  two  copies,  one  for  the  United  States 
government  and  one  for  your  department?  A.  The  United  States 
government  has  a  different  form. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  White).  Is  this  a  duplication,  so  far  as  the  reading 
goes,  of  the  United  States  form?  A.  It  is  practically. 

Q.  Do  they  have  a  separate  form  which  the  owner  signs  too?  A. 
Thev  don’t  worrv  about  the  owner. 

%j  «/ 

Q.  You  said  you  had  two  copies  made  by  the  appraiser  —  one  is 
given  the  United  States  government  and  you  retain  this  one.  Is  that 
true?  A.  If  I  said  anything  about  two  copies  of  such  an  agreement  as 
this,  I  was  referring  to  the  copies  that  would  be  signed  by  the  owner, 
one  representing  his  agreement  to  accept  from  the  United  States,  and 
one  representing  his  agreement  to  accept  from  the  State;  but  so  far 
as  the  State  goes,  only  one  is  signed. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  You  have  in  your  department  57  agents,  I 
believe?  A.  Yes,  I  think  perhaps  more,  Mr.  Tyrrell. 

Q.  You  have  57  agents  and  about  21  regular  officials,  and  you  have 
a  large  number  of  agents  giving  part  time?  A.  The  57  that  you  refer 
to  are  on  a  per  diem  basis,  giving  part  time.  There  is  something  like 
20  who  are  regularly  employed. 

Q  (by  Mr.  W  ood).  How  are  the  57  appointed?  A.  They  are  ap¬ 
pointed  depending  upon  the  need. 

Q.  Who  names  them?  A.  They  are  taken  from  such  veterinarians 
as  are  recorded  on  the  civil  service  list  as  available  for  service  bv  the 
Commonwealth.  At  the  time  I  came  to  the  service  of  the  State  there 
were  no  civil  service  restrictions.  The  following  June  the  Governor 
and  Council  passed  an  order  which  provides  that  veterinarians  in  the 
employ  of  the  State  or  cities  thereof  should  be  registered  under  the 
civil  service  act.  I  was  unfamiliar  with  the  personnel  of  the  agents 


28 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


of  the  department  at  that  time,  and  incidentally  the  Civil  Service 
Commission  said  to  me:  Now,  such  men  as  are  employed  regularly, 
are  employed  occasionally,  or  likely  to  be  employed  —  that  is  just 
the  term  he  used  —  as  veterinarians  for  the  department  may  be 
registered  prior  to  this  law  going  into  effect  without  competitive 
examination.  Therefore,  as  I  said,  with  little  knowledge  of  the  per¬ 
sonnel  of  the  agents,  I  asked  one  of  the  men  in  the  department  who 
knew  the  men  all  over  the  State  to  prepare  a  list  that  would  include 
all  veterinarians  that  had  been  or  were  likely  to  be  employed  as 
agents  of  the  State,  and  he  submitted  such  a  list,  and  that  is  what 
the  57  comprise. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  Isn’t  it  a  fact  that  they  are  nominated  by 
the  mayors  and  boards  of  selectmen?  A.  That  is  another  matter,  Mr. 

Tvrrell. 

%/ 

Q.  Would  you  call  the  veterinarian  out  in  Somerville  who  works 
part  time  for  you  —  would  you  call  him  an  agent?  A.  Yes,  I  would 
call  him  an  agent  occasionally.  There  is  an  inspector  of  animals  in 
Somerville  who  is  an  agent.  He  is  appointed  by  the  City  of  Somer¬ 
ville  to  be  an  inspector  of  animals  and  meat.  His  appointment  is  sub¬ 
ject  to  my  approval. 

Q.  What  report  does  your  department  receive  from  the  condemning 
officers  of  the  cattle  that  is  to  be  destroyed?  A.  We  received  during 
this  last  outbreak  usually  a  letter  from  the  men  confirming  the  previous 
suspicion  that  it  is  a  case  of  foot-and-mouth  disease.  Sometimes  it  was 
simply  a  telephonic  communication. 

Q.  Is  that  all  that  you  receive  as  to  the  value  of  these  cattle? 
A.  Oh,  no.  We  have  a  statement  from  the  veterinarians  who  acted  dur¬ 
ing  this  outbreak.  Our  veterinarians  have  usually  acted  with  the  Federal 
men;  that  is,  in  certain  cases  where  we  were  suspicious  our  men  and 
the  Federal  men  would  go  together.  As  soon  as  it  was  determined  by 
them  or  by  either  that  it  was  a  positive  case,  report  to  that  effect  was 
made  to  our  office,  by  telephone  or  telegram.  The  appraisers  would 
then  go  to  that  place,  make  the  appraisal,  and  arrangements  for  the 
trench  and  the  killing  were  rushed  as  speedily  as  possible. 

Q.  Do  you  receive  a  complete  detailed  report?  A.  Yes;  we  receive 
a  report  stating  that  there  are  22  head  of  cows,  2  heifers,  1  bull  and 
10  hogs  on  this  place  infected  with  foot-and-mouth  disease. 

Q.  That  is  all  they  notifv  you  —  that  there  are  that  number  of  cows 
infected?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  They  don’t  notifv  you  as  to  the  condition  of  the  cows  —  whether 
or  not  they  were  Holsteins?  A.  Just  cows. 

Q.  You  receive  no  notification  as  to  the  quality .  of  the  cows  — 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — Xo.  1751. 


29 


whether  or  not  they  are  dry  or  milk-giving  cows,  or  as  to  the  quantity 
of  milk  they  give?  A.  No. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Wood).  Does  the  hoof-and-mouth  disease  affect  the 
milk?  A.  It  is  said  to.  It  affects  the  quantity  of  the  milk. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  So  far  as  your  department  is  concerned, 
you  have  no  information  to  show  when  a  cow  is  appraised  why  the 
appraisal  was  fixed  at  a  certain  price?  A.  Yes,  we  have  the  most 
absolute  and  indisputable  evidence  in  the  person  of  the  men  who  fix 
the  price.  If  you  knew  the  quality  of  the  men  who  go  out  and  make 
these  appraisals  you  never  would  — 

Q.  So  far  as  documentary  evidence  is  concerned,  you  have  not  a 
particle  of  evidence  in  your  department  to  show  whether  a  cow  is 
worth  $10  or  S100?  A.  We  have  the  statement  of  the  owner  that  there 
were  20  cows  at  a  certain  price. 

Q.  Other  than  that  you  have  no  information  as  to  the  cows?  A.  Xo. 

Q.  What  investigation  have  you  made  to  determine  the  length  of 
time  condemned  animals  were  owned  prior  to  their  being  destroyed? 
A  Not  any  investigation. 

Q.  Then  you  have  not  a  particle  of  evidence  in  your  department  as 

to  whether  or  not  the  cattle  were  owned  for  one  dav,  ten  davs  or  ten 

vears.  A.  That  is  absolutelv  correct. 

%! 

Q.  Then  there  is  no  way  for  the  incoming  Legislature  to  determine, 
if  they  see  fit,  whether  the  cattle  infected  with  this  disease  have  been 
owned  for  at  least  six  months.  There  is  no  way  of  giving  them  any 
information  to  determine  whether  or  not  an  appropriation  should  be 
granted  for  that  number  of  cattle  which  have  been  condemned  and 
destroyed.  A.  I  think  there  is  if  they  want  to  take  the  trouble  to 
find  it.  We  have  not  any  documentary  evidence. 

Q.  You  have  not  made  any  investigation?  A.  We  don’t  consider  it 
necessarv. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Wood).  Supposing  the  appraisers  should  die?  A.  There 
is  the  documentary  evidence  that  they  agreed  to  the  value  on  the  day 
they  were  there. 

Q.  But  the  State  pays  the  bills.  Supposing  the  two  appraisers 
should  die,  how  would  these  cases  be  settled?  A.  How  could  they  be 
settled  any  better  if  they  did  not  die? 

Q.  I  mean  in  case  of  dispute.  Suppose  the  State  raises  the  question 
that  an  excess  price  was  granted  for  a  herd  of  cows.  There  is  no 
record  made  of  whether  or  not  those  cows  were  Jerseys.  Supposing 
some  one  comes  in  and  says  that  those  cows  were  oyer-appraised? 
A.  There  is  that  possibility. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  The  law  specifically  states  that  the  owner 


30 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


of  the  condemned  cattle  must  be  in  possession  of  them  and  own  them 
for  a  period  of  six  months  in  order  to  be  reimbursed.  The  incoming 
Legislature  might  override  this  order  of  the  Governor  and  Council. 
They  agree  to  pay  50  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  cattle,  and  there 
is  not  a  bit  of  documentary  evidence  in  your  office  to  show  the  length 
of  time  they  were  owned  by  the  owner  prior  to  being  destroyed. 
A.  I  don’t  understand  that  the  Governor  and  Council  —  and  I  don’t 
think  they  understand  that  they  have  obligated  the  State  by  their 
vote.  Have  you  the  letter  from  the  Lnited  States  Bureau  to  me  that 
I  submitted  to  the  Council? 

Q.  That  is  under  date  of  November  6?  A.  Yes;  in  that,  as  I  recall 
it,  the  United  States  Bureau  did  not  ask  the  Governor  and  Council  to 
obligate  the  State  to  pay  50  per  cent.,  or  any  part  of  that,  but  rather 
asked  me  to  get  the  Governor  and  Council  to  agree,  tacitly,  as  it  were, 
to  a  50-50  basis  of  settlement.  I  think  if  you  should  ask  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  and  Council  if  they  had  agreed  to  pay  50  per  cent,  of  the  ap¬ 
praised  value,  they  would  say  no. 

Q.  I  want  to  read  the  three  last  paragraphs  on  page  2  of  the  letter 
from  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  Bureau  of  Animal 
Industry,  under  date  of  November  16,  1914,  to  Fred  F.  Walker,  Com¬ 
missioner  of  Animal  Industry,  Boston,  Mass.  [Mr.  Tyrrell  reads  the 
paragraphs  in  question.]  A.  The  word  “plan,”  Mr.  Chairman,  is  the 
one  word  of  importance  in  that  letter,  —  in  that  whole  thing.  The 
Department  of  Agriculture,  in  my  opinion,  has  no  authority  to  say 
what  the  United  States  Government  will  or  will  not  do.  The  plan 
of  procedure  as  herein  outlined  is,  “  Get  your  Governor  and  Council  to 
agree  to  that  plan.” 

Q.  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Walker.  Doesn’t  that  letter  read  that  “that  is 
the  plan  we  are  now  operating  under?”  The  plan  under  which  the  de¬ 
partment  is  operating  in  the  various  States  is  as  follows.  A.  At  that 
time  Dr.  Melvin  made  it  more  than  clear  to  me  that  the  whole  thing 
was  problematic.  He  said,  “We  have  not  a  dollar.  We  have  not  really 
money  enough  to  get  the  preliminary  work  under  way  in  a  satisfactory 
manner.”  The  “plan”  is  the  whole  thing,  —  the  50-50  basis.  I  take 
exceptions  to  that  inference  that  the  government  will  pay  75  per  cent., 
because,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  are  doing  more  than  they  are,  —  quite 
a  bit,  in  my  opinion.  They  are  not  figuring  75  per  cent.  They  are 
just  dividing  it  half  and  half  so  far. 

Q.  Then  you  accept  the  figures  of  the  appraisers  without  question? 
A.  Yes,  unqualifiedly. 

Q.  What  examination  is  made  into  the  history  of  the  cows  that  have 
been  condemned  and  slaughtered?  A.  The  history  of  the  case  is  gone 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


31 


over  carefully.  That  is  one  of  the  principal  branches  of  work  of  our 
agent,  who  goes  there  to  inquire  minutely  into  where  the  cows  come 
from,  if  any  had  left  the  herd,  etc.  He  gets  the  best  history  of  the 
case  that  he  can. 

Q.  Does  he  submit  that  history  to  your  department?  A.  If  it 
develops  that  it  is  at  all  interesting  he  does.  If  he  goes  to  your  barn 
he  gets  in  touch'  with  you  as  the  owner.  He  says,  “Now,  Mr. 
Tyrrell,  what  have  you  got  here?”  You  say,  “I  have  10  cows.  I 
raised  them  all  on  the  place.  I  have  not  bought  one  for  10  years,  and 
I  have  not  sold  one  for  10  years.”  You  might  say,  “I  have  10  cows 
and  I  bought  them  all  within  two  years.” 

Q.  (by  Mr.  White).  Don’t  you  require  each  of  your  agents  to  keep 
a  record  of  his  doings?  A.  Oh,  yes. 

Q.  He  has  that  on  file?  A.  We  have  it  on  file.  We  have  records  of 
his  every-day  work  on  his  expense  slips  and  other  ways. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  Relative  to  the  award  of  damages  to  prop¬ 
erty  —  who  passes  on  that?  A.  That  is  a  matter  yet  to  be  determined. 
It  has  been  proposed  by  me  and  agreed  to  by  the  local  agent  that  there 
should  be  a  contractor  who  should  visit  the  premises  where  property 
has  been  destroyed,  make  measurements,  calculations,  etc.,  and  sub¬ 
mit  estimates  relative  to  the*value  of  the  property  destroyed. 

Q.  Who  passes  upon  that?  A.  The  man  in  charge  of  the  disinfect¬ 
ing  gang,  subject  to  the  supervision  of  his  superior,  the  chief  in  charge 
of  the  bureau  here.  Incidentally,  we  recently  had  the  pleasure  of 
having  here  a  more  than  ordinary  expert  from  Washington,  who  made 
a  study  of  the  disinfecting  plant. 

Q.  Has  he  got  expert  knowledge  as  to  building?  I  suppose  you 
mean  he  passes  on  what  is  to  be  destroyed  in  order  to  make  a  clean 
disinfection.  A.  That  is  supposed  to  be  within  the  knowledge  of  the 
gang  foreman  who  is  in  charge  of  the  work.  However,  no  case  is  left 
as  completed  until  his  work  has  been  supervised  by  some  man  bigger 
than  he  is,  and  the  biggest  and  best  man  we  can  get  on  that  work  is 
the  man  we  have.  We  recently  had  a  man  from  Washington.  He 
goes  over  these  places,  perhaps.  One  of  the  men  I  send  out  goes  and 
looks  it  over,  and  if  there  are  any  cracks  or  any  rotten  lumber  that 
seems  to  be  a  danger  it  is  ripped  out. 

Q.  There  is  no  limit  placed  upon  the  amount  of  property  destroyed? 
A.  Safety  first  is  the  plan,  Mr.  Chairman.  In  fact,  we  have  one  set  of 
buildings  now,  and  it  will  require  a  great  deal  of  deliberation  on  the 
part  of  the  State  and  Federal  authorities  to  determine  whether  or  not 
it  would  be  advisable  to  burn  the  structures  rather  than  disinfect  them. 
It  happens  to  be  a  hog  ranch  at  Rehoboth,  and  they  are  built  on  hard 


32 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


IFeb. 


plans  to  properly  disinfect.  The  owner  is  to  clear  out  the  litter  so  we 
can  see  it  and  determine  about  it. 

Q.  Isn’t  it  a  fact  that  the  Commonwealth  will  have  to  reimburse  for 
all  property  destroyed?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Has  there  been  any  estimate  as  to  the  cost  of  this  work?  A. 
That  is  what  I  was  coming  to  a  few  moments  ago.  There  is  in  process 
the  appointment,  on  the  part  of  the  State  and  Federal  authorities,  of  a 
contractor  who  is  supposed  to  be  qualified  to  accurately  estimate  the 
value  of  the  material,  etc.,  and  the  cost  of  administering  the  same. 

Q.  The  work  of  demolition  has  gone  on  without  being  passed  upon 
by  anybody?  A.  The  work  of  demolition  has  gone  on  because  of  its 
necessity.  The  owners  of  property  cannot  get  the  disinfecting  crews 
there  quick  enough.  They  want  them  to  come  right  off. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Wood).  Has  that  gone  on  without  any  record  being 
made  of  it?  A.  Oh,  no. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  Has  that  gone  on  without  having  same 
supervised  —  without  having  expert  knowledge  as  to  what  the  re¬ 
placement  would  cost?  A.  It  has  gone  on  under  the  direction  of  the 
foreman,  and  it  has  been  absolutely  necessary  to  destroy  such  portions 
of  the  property  as  would  permit  of  thorough  disinfecting.  The  disin¬ 
fecting  crews  are  in  charge  of  men  and  under  the  supervision  of  men 
who  have  expert  knowledge  relative  to  the  amount  of  material  neces¬ 
sary  to  destroy  in  order  to  thoroughly  disinfect  the  place.  Where  you 
and  I  are  confused,  I  guess,  is  on  whether  or  not  there  is  any  record 
of  the  material  destroyed  being  kept.  A  record  of  the  material  de¬ 
stroyed  is  kept.  Now,  then,  it  is  proposed  to  appoint  an  expert  who 
will  visit  these  premises,  take  the  records  submitted  by  the  man  in 
charge  of  the  job  when  the  thing  was  destroyed,  confirm  his  reports 
from  a  view  of  the  place,  and  make  accurate  estimate  of  the  cost  of 
the  material  and  the  cost  of  replacing  it. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Wood).  Who  is  the  man  who  makes  the  report?  Is 

he  a  contractor?  A.  The  veterinary  in  charge  of  the  disinfecting  crew 

makes  the  report  to  headquarters  in  reference  to  the  material  de- 

stroved. 

*/ 

Q.  Will  you  submit  to  this  commission  one  specimen  copy  where 
your  head  clerk  or  veterinary  submits  a  record?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  From  the  information  that  you  have  at  your 
office  can  you  estimate  what  it  will  cost  the  Commonwealth  to  replace 
property  that  has  been  destroyed?  A.  No,  I  cannot,  Mr.  Tyrrell. 

Q.  Or  that  is  to  be  destroyed?  A.  There  has  not  been  a  single  esti¬ 
mate  made  of  the  value  of  property  destroyed  or  of  the  cost  of  reinstat¬ 
ing  same. 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


33 


Q.  Then  it  is  purely  problematic  what  that  is  going  to  cost?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  You  stated  one  case  there  —  what  is  the  name  of  the  town? 
A.  Rehoboth. 

Q.  Wherein  you  thought  it  would  be  advisable  to  burn  down  the 
buildings.  A.  I  don’t  think  I  ever  thought  so.  I  said  that  it  was 
being  very  deliberately  considered  —  the  method  of  satisfactorily  dis¬ 
infecting  those  premises,  and  it  had  been  recommended  by  some  that 
the  premises  be  burned. 

Q.  Who  recommended  that  they  be  burned?  A.  A  representative 
of  the  Federal  Bureau  who  was  with  me  the  other  day.  He  said, 
“Walker,  you  will  never  clear  this  thing  up  until  you  burn  it.” 

Q.  How  many  cows  would  that  barn  tie  up?  A.  That  was  a  piggery. 
It  was  a  perfectly  awful  place.  They  were  nothing  but  shells  at  the 
most.  They  had  to  go  in  there  and  scrape  and  spray  and  tear  out. 
It  is  difficult  to  determine  whether  or  not  it  would  not  be  cheaper  to 
burn  it  all  up.  We  would  then  have  a  thorough  job.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  my  opinion  quite  a  percentage  of  the  property  there  can  be 
saved  and  satisfactorily  disinfected. 

Q.  You  had  considerable  of  this  disease  in  Worcester  County?  A. 
Yes,  there  were  several  cases  in  Worcester.  There  were  two  cases  in 
Grafton  and  one  in  Paxton.  I  think  he  is  Mr.  Ellsworth.  He  is  a 
brother  of  our  former  friend,  J.  Lewis. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  White).  This  is  J.  W.?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  Have  you  visited  these  places  where  the 
different  herds  were  destroyed?  A.  I  went  to  Amherst  and  visited 
the  Henry  herd,  as  I  told  you.  I  went  to  the  Taylor  herd  in  North 
Amherst  the  day  the  appraisers  were  there,  and  I  went  to  this  Re¬ 
hoboth  job. 

Q.  Was  the  Taylor  herd  a  blooded  stock?  A.  Frankly,  we  have  not 
had  an  outbreak  in  a  single  thoroughbred  herd  in  the  State. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Wood).  Have  you  been  paying  thoroughbred  prices? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  Can  you  explain  how  it  is  that  your  ap¬ 
praisers  have  appraised  some  herds  at  $50  or  less,  and  other  herds  they 
have  appraised  as  high  as  $90?  A.  I  don’t  know  how  much  of  a 
farmer  you  are,  but  I  assume  you  know  that  there  is  a  great  margin  in 
the  quality  of  cows.  There  is  just  as  much  difference  as  there  is  in 
overcoats. 

Q.  It  depends  upon  the  appraisers?  A.  No,  it  depends  upon  the 
cattle,  —  not  on  the  appraisers. 

Q.  You  have  nothing  in  your  department  to  show  the  breed  of  the 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


34 


[Feb. 


cattle,  or  the  milk-giving  qualities,  or  whether  or  not  it  would  be  good 
meat?  A.  No. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Wood).  When  do  you  propose  to  release  your  extra 
men?  A.  That  is  rather  hard  to  say.  I  did  say  I  was  going  to  release 
one  on  Saturday  night,  but  I  did  not  get  in  touch  with  him.  I  am  to 
release  him  to-night. 

Q.  Do  you  consider  the  epidemic  now  over?  A.  I  think  I  can  safely 
say  yes.  I  would  not  be  surprised  if  we  had  a  few  straggling  cases. 
We  have  not  had  a  new  case  for  a  week. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  Has  the  thought  suggested  itself  to  you,  or 
do  you  feel  that  there  may  be  people  aggrieved  who  were  not  owners 
of  cattle,  but  were  abutters  to  property  where  infected  cattle  was  kept? 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Wood).  Wasn’t  that  the  question  you  asked  me  this 
morning  or  yesterday,  in  regard  to  people  coming  in  and  requesting 
your  advice?  A.  What  I  asked,  Mr.  Wood,  was  as  to  what  you  con¬ 
sidered  my  duty  when  an  owner  who  had  had  his  place  quarantined 
and  who  had  lost  the  sale  of  his  milk  and  had  his  beef  tied  up  incident 
to  quarantine,  came  and  said  that  he  wanted  satisfaction  from  some¬ 
body.  You,  I  think,  agreed  with  me  that  I  had  no  authority,  as  I 
have  stated  to  them,  to  say  what  he  might  or  might  not  do,  but  that 
I  could  say  to  him  that  it  was  his  privilege  to  make  such  claim  against 
the  Commonwealth  or  against  any  individual  thereof  as  he  saw  fit. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  Did  you  so  advise?  A.  I  did  not  advise. 
Men  have  said  to  me  repeatedly  that  I  want  this  or  I  want  that,  but 
I  have  always  said:  “Understand  me  not  to  be  advising  you.  Under¬ 
stand  me  to  have  no  authority  to  direct  that  you  submit  a  bill  or 
anything  of  the  kind.”  I  said,  “It  is  your  privilege  to  do  it.”  They 
go  on  in  a  rather  hysterical  manner  as  to  what  they  are  going  to  do, 
etc.  I  have  said  to  them  that  it  was  their  privilege  to  submit  such 
claims  to  the  Great  and  General  Court  as  they  saw  fit,  that  I  had  no 
authority  to  pass  on  them  or  recommend  them,  one  way  or  the  other. 
One  of  my  best  men,  Dr.  Field,  the  most  honest  fellow  imaginable, 
said  something  of  that  character  to  a  man  down  in  Mendon,  only  to 
have  him  call  me  up  on  the  next  day  and  announce  to  me  that  Dr. 
Field  said  that  if  he  would  send  in  a  bill  for  his  milk  which  was 
destroyed  the  State  would  pay  him.  He  did  not  say  that,  because  he 
does  not  say  those  things,  and  I  don’t  say  them. 

Q.  Mr.  Walker,  will  you  please  submit  to  this  commission  a  copy 
of  the  telegram  that  you  received  from  Dr  Paige?  A.  Yes,  Mr. 
Tyrrell. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  White).  Can  you  get  a  copy  of  the  agreement  that  the 
owners  signed  with  the  government?  A.  Yes. 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


35 


Q.  (by  Mr.  Wood).  What  is  your  recommendation  in  regard  to 
meeting  these  bills  —  have  a  special  appropriation  set  aside  for  them 
and  have  them  present  their  claims  to  the  Legislature?  A.  I  don’t 
know  as  I  am  an  authority  on  that  subject.  I  had  thought  in  a  gen¬ 
eral  way  you  or  some  other  authority  would  eventually  demand  from 
me  a  statement  of  actual  expenditures,  actual  indebtedness  pending, 
so  far  as  we  could  compute  it,  and  that  you  would  make  a  recom¬ 
mendation  to  the  Legislature  for  the  passage  of  a  bill  covering  such 
expenditures,  if  it  seemed  wise  for  you  to  do  so.  If  it  did  not,  it 
seemed  to  me  that  it  would  probably  be  the  duty  of  some  person 
whose  property  had  been  destroyed  to  make  a  petition  to  the  Legis¬ 
lature.  I  do  not  consider  that  it  would  be  my  business  to  demand  an 
appropriation  from  the  Legislature,  because  I  think  there  are  higher 
authorities  than  I  who  are  supervising  the  State’s  finances. 

Q.  What  was  your  appropriation  for  animal  extermination  last 
year?  A.  $171,000.  That  was  for  the  office  work  and  the  general 
appropriation;  $160,000  for  animals. 

Q.  What  did  you  spend  of  that  amount  for  the  fiscal  year?  A.  We 
have  not  got  our  report  made  up.  We  are  working  on  it  now.  We 
have  until  December  10. 

Q.  Will  there  be  a  balance,  do  you  think?  A.  I  am  very  sure  of  it. 

Q.  You  don’t  know  what  will  be  available  from  that  appropriation? 
A.  No,  I  don’t  know;  but  I  know  we  have  a  balance,  so  we  are  all 
right. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Wood).  Do  you  consider  that  document  there  which  is 
signed  by  the  owner  and  the  appraiser  a  bill  of  sale?  A.  I  consider  it 
simply  a  record  of  agreement.  I  am  very  frank  to  say  that  we  dispute 
the  fact  that  that  was  copied  from  the  United  States  Bureau’s  docu¬ 
ment  of  a  similar  character.  If  I  was  constructing  one  myself  and 
had  to  do  it  over  again,  I  would  draft  it  in  different  terms.  It  seems 
to  me  that  perhaps  you  or  any  citizen,  seeing  it  for  the  first  time, 
might  be  just  a  little  confused  as  to  its  real  purpose. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  You  are  not  qualified  to  pass  on  this; 
neither  am  I  or  anybody  else.  I  don’t  believe  there  is  an  owner  in 
the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  who  signed  one  of  those  cer¬ 
tificates,  but  felt  that  it  was  a  bill  of  sale  for  his  cattle.  A.  We  buried 
137  for  one  man.  He  was  in  the  office  the  other  day  and  expressed  in 
no  uncertain  terms  that  it  was  not  a  bill  of  sale.  They  do  not  under¬ 
stand  it  so,  because  they  know,  every  one  of  them,  that  there  is  not  a 
cent  to  cover  it. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Wood).  Do  they  reserve  their  rights  to  appeal?  A. 
They  give  up  and  say,  “  I  will  accept  that  much.” 


36 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


Q.  Does  the  State  reserve  the  right  to  pay  less?  A.  That  is  for  the 
State  to  say.  The  State  has  the  right  to  pay  nothing  under  the  law 
now.  I  think  the  Legislature  has  the  right  to  pay  10  per  cent,  of  that 
amount  or  nothing. 

Q.  Do  you  think  they  have  to  go  to  the  Governor  and  Council? 
Don’t  you  think  that  section  6,  chapter  90  of  the  Revised  Laws  covers 
these  cases?  [Copy  of  section  6  handed  Mr.  Walker.]  A.  That  is 
what  I  have  been  sure  of  all  the  time,  gentlemen,  —  that  our  position 
was  unqualifiedly  tenable,  —  that  this  document  here  was  rather,  from 
many  viewpoints,  unnecessary  when  viewed  from  the  standpoint  of 
actual  conditions  to-day.  This  is  the  law  under  wdiich  we  killed  those 
cattle.  The  other  day  there  -was  a  man  in  Rehoboth  who  said  that 
the  appraisers  and  the  wdiole  State  government  might  go  somew'here 
where  it  is  warmer  than  it  w^as  right  there  at  that  time.  He  said, 
“I  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  you.”  The  appraisers  had  told  him 
wdiat  they  w'ould  agree  was  a  fair  price  for  his  cattle.  He,  in  turn, 
announced  that  he  was  going  to  have  a  considerable  amount  more  than 
that  mentioned,  and  they  came  awray  and  reported  that  no  agreement 
^vas  reached. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  What  are  you  going  to  do  in  the  event  of 
the  Legislature  deciding  to  pay  those  who  owned  cattle  more  than  six 
months  prior  to  their  being  destroyed?  A.  I  am  going  to  leave  it  to 
that  same  Legislature  to  ascertain  in  their  own  way  which  cattle  were 
owned  six  months. 

Q.  You  don’t  think  it  is  your  duty  to  give  the  Legislature  that  in¬ 
formation?  A.  No. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  White).  You  might,  I  presume,  if  they  take  that 
attitude,  tell  them  to  make  their  agreement  with  the  United  States 
government  on  the  50-50  basis.  A.  Certainly. 

Q.  I  imagine  the  government  would  have  not  made  any  such  50-50 
arrangement,  with  the  understanding  that  they  should  assume  the 
entire  cost  of  the  out-of-State  cattle.  I  presume  they  wrould  not,  but 
still  that  is  none  of  our  business.  'We  can  still  assume  that  we  don’t 
have  to  pay  a  nickel  under  the  law.  We  don’t  have  to  pay  a  cent. 
A.  It  may  be  determined  by  the  Legislature  whether  or  not  they  will 
pay. 

Q.  In  other  words  —  perhaps  my  understanding  is  wrong  —  this 
appraisal  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  giving  the  Legislature  information 
as  to  wdiat  they  can  settle  agreeable  to  the  parties  for.  If  they  want 
to  settle  regardless  of  the  parties,  they  can  fall  back  on  the  old  law. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Wood).  How  many  cases  were  there  where  agreements 
were  not  reached?  A.  Not  any.  This  man  thought  it  over  night, 


1915.] 


HOUSE  —  Xo.  1751. 


37 


and  he  could  not  find  us  quick  enough  the  next  day  to  sign  the  paper. 
The  appraisers  also  signed.  In  the  meantime  some  good  neighbor  had 
dropped  in  on  him  and  read  the  provisions  of  section  6,  and  under 
that  section  his  cattle  would  have  been  killed. 

Q.  (by  Mr.  Tyrrell).  Don’t  you  believe  that  every  man  who 
signed  that  agreement  signed  it  in  good  faith  that  the  Commonwealth 
would  reimburse  him?  A.  I  have  not  talked  on  that  subject,  but  one 
man  who  signed  it  (that  is  the  man  we  killed  the  137  cows  for)  said, 
“What  do  you  think  the  chances  are  of  our  getting  compensation  from 
the  State  or  nation?"  I  said,  “I  think  it  is  excellent." 

Q.  Would  you  sign  a  statement  such  as  this,  if  you  owned  cattle, 
without  thinking  that  you  were  to  be  reimbursed  for  the  loss  of  that 
cattle?  Let  us  meet  the  issue  fair  and  square.  Isn't  it  a  fact  that 
that  is  obtained  under  false  pretenses?  A.  That  is  obtained  under 
section  6. 

Q.  Has  section  6  been  quoted  to  those  whose  cattle  has  been  de- 

stroved?  A.  The  fact  that  there  was  no  monev  available  has  been 
*/  */ 

quoted. 

Q.  I  want  to  ask  you  if  your  agents  quoted  section  6,  chapter  90  of 

the  Revised  Laws  prior  to  destroying  property?  A.  I  don’t  know  that 

thev  did. 

«/ 

Hearing  closed  at  4.30  p.m. 

The  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts, 

Office  of  Department  of  Animal  Industry, 
State  House,  Boston,  Dec.  14,  1914. 

Commission  on  Efficiency  and  Economy,  State  House,  Boston,  Mass. 

Gentlemen  :  —  In  pursuance  with  my  agreement  with  you,  I  am 
pleased  to  submit  herewith  record  of  animals  destroyed  because 
affected  with,  or  exposed  to,  foot-and-mouth  disease,  together  with  the 
appraised  value  of  same,  of  which  value  it  is  generally  understood 
Massachusetts  will  pay  50  per  cent.,  if  such  payment  is  agreeable  to 
such  officials  of  the  Commonwealth  as  have  jurisdiction  over  its 
expenditures. 

The  before-mentioned  appraisals  have  been  made  with  a  full  under¬ 
standing  on  the  part  of  the  owners  that  payments  of  amounts  agreed 
upon  was  dependent  on  later  action  of  national  and  State  governments. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)  FRED  F.  WALKER, 

Commissioner. 


38 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY 


[Feb 


List  of  Herds  condemned  by  the  Commissioner  of  Animal  Industry  because  affected 
with  or  exposed  to  Foot-and-Month  Disease,  December  12,  1914. 


Name  of  Owner. 

Address. 

Date 

con¬ 

demned. 

Appraisal, 
Number  Animals. 

Date 

killed. 

Angel!,  H.  B..  . 

I 

1 

j  Rehoboth,  . 

Dec.  4,  . 

§2,400,  .  .  .  . 

32  cattle,  $75. 

Dec.  8. 

Barney,  A.  H., 

Rehoboth,  . 

Dec.  4,  . 

$23,710,  .  .  .  . 

2,033  hogs,  $11.12+. 
$1,800 

24  cattle,  $75. 

$30 

3  goats,  $10. 

Dec.  9-10-11. 

Benson,  Walter, 

Granby, 

Dec.  4, 

SI, 958,  . 

32  cattle,  $58 TV 

10  hogs,  est.  $10. 

Dec.  12. 

Blodgett,  Chester  B., 

West  Boylston,  . 

Nov.  14,  . 

$300,  .... 

6  cattle,  $50. 

Nov.  24. 

Boston,  City  of, 

Deer  Island, 

Nov.  12,  . 

$3,300,  .... 

43  cattle,  $76+. 

Nov.  20. 

Brothers,  F.  S., 

Bellingham, 

Nov.  10,  . 

$1,050,  .... 

17  cattle,  $61+. 

$70 

70  fowl,  $1. 

Nov.  18. 

Brothers,  I.  J., 

:  Bellingham, 

Nov.  10,  . 

$560,  .... 

8  cattle,  $70. 

$30 

3  shoats,  $10. 

cioc 

100  fowl,  $1.25. 

Nov.  17. 

Brown,  O.  R., 

Swansea, 

Nov.  17,  . 

$4,750,  .... 

56  cattle,  $84+. 

Nov.  22-23. 

Clarrage,  M.  R., 

Lynn,  . 

Nov.  14,  . 

$921,  .... 

16  cattle,  $56+ 

2  hogs,  est.  $10. 

Nov.  28. 

Coburn,  0.  J., 

Dracut, 

Nov.  13,  . 

$6,500,  .... 

87  cattle,  $74+. 

$1,830 

130  hogs,  $14i13. 

$34 

34  fowl,  $1. 

Nov.  26. 

DelMastro,  D.,  \ 

Davis,  D.  W.,  .  .  / 

Belmont, 

Nov.  8,  . 

r  $300,  .... 

6  cattle,  $50. 

•  8102 

2  cattle,  849. 

4  fowl,  est.  $1. 

Nov.  19. 

Dumas,  L.  M., 

Shrewsbury, 

Nov.  22,  . 

$705,  .... 

10  cattle,  est.  $67.50. 

3  hogs,  est.  $10. 

Nov.  25. 

Ellsworth,  J.  W., 

Worcester,  . 

Nov.  27,  . 

$1,130,  .... 

13  cattle,  $86+. 

Dec.  4. 

Fay,  T.  J.,  J 

Swampscott, 

Dec.  2,  . 

$2,400,  .... 

39  cattle,  $61+. 

Dec.  5. 

Fearing,  W.  B., 

202-W 

Hingham,  . 

Nov.  14,  . 

$10,350,  .... 

142  cattle,  est.  $72+. 

6  swine,  est.  $10. 

$11 

11  fowl,  $1. 

Nov.  30. 

Forrest,  John,  .  .  .  j 

Stoneham,  . 

Nov.  19,  . 

$915,  . 

10  cattle,  est.  $88. 

28  fowl,  est.  $1. 

Dec.  1. 

1915.] 


HOUSE — No.  1751 


39 


List  of  Herds  condemned  by  the  Commissioner  of  Animal  Industry  because  affected 
with  or  exposed  to  Foot-and- Mouth  Disease,  December  12,  1914  —  Con. 


Name  of  Owxer. 

Address. 

Date 

con¬ 

demned. 

Appraisal, 

Number  Animals. 

Date 

I  .  killed. 

Flanagan,  M.  J., 

Attleboro,  . 

Dec.  3,  . 

$365,  .... 

4  cattle,  est.  $50. 

16  swine,  est.  $10. 

Dec.  11. 

Gates,  N.  A., 

Danvers, 

Nov.  13, 

$480,  .... 

8  cattle,  $60. 

$15 

32  fowl,  est.  $47. 

Nov.  28. 

Godck,  Mm 

Chicopee, 

Xov.  10,  . 

$226 . 

2  cows,  est.  $80. 

60  fowl,  est.  $1. 

Nov.  16. 

Goodale,  A.,  Est.,  . 

West  Bovlston,  . 

: 

Nov.  15,  . 

$1,670,  .... 

23  cattle,  est.  $72. 

1  hog,  est.  $10. 

2  fowl,  est.  $1. 

Dec.  2. 

Grosvenor,  D.  C.,  . 

Auburn , 

Nov.  12,  . 

$1,600 . 

22  cattle,  est.  $71. 

2  hogs,  est.  $10. 

Nov.  25. 

Heland,  G.  F., 

Dracut, 

Dec.  - 

$3,086.50, 

39  cattle,  est.  $72.73. 

25  hogs,  est.  $10. 

Dec.  12. 

Henry,  Geo.  L., 

Amherst, 

Nov.  o,  . 

$1,895,  .... 

19  cattle,  est.  $86. 

6  shoats,  est.  $10. 

89  fowl,  est.  $1. 

Nov.  14. 

Johnson,  Emma  M., 

Grafton, 

Dec.  1,  . 

$900,  .... 

17  cattle,  $52+. 

$30 

7  sneep,  $4.50. 

Dec.  31. 

Jordan,  H.  G.,  Co., 

Hingham,  . 

Nov.  18,  . 

$495,  ... 

9  cattle,  $55. 

$216 

16  swine,  $13.50. 

Nov.  30. 

Jourdan,  A.  H., 

Gratton, 

Nov.  16,  . 

8890 

*  12 ’cattle,  $58+ 

8  swine,  est.  $10. 

36  fowl,  est.  $1. 

Nov.  23. 

Kelly,  0.  A.,  . 

Worcester,  . 

Nov.  6,  . 

$3,900,  .... 

65  cattle,  $58+. 

8  pigs,  est.  $10. 

Nov.  21. 

Leonard,  S.  F., 

Brighton, 

Nov.  6,  . 

- 

Nov.  10(U.  S.). 

Levine,  H.,  .  .  1 

Brodie,  Annie, 

Worcester,  . 

Nov.  23,  . 

f  $1,161,  ... 

13  cattle,  $88+. 

11  fowl,  est.  $1. 

<  $355 

4  cattle,  $75+. 

53  fowl,  est.  $1 
(2  short). 

Dec.  2. 

Levine,  M., 

Worcester,  . 

Nov.  10,  . 

$1,300,  .... 

18  cattle,  $68+. 

70  fowl,  est.  $1. 

Nov.  22. 

Lenzi,  E., 

Sod  bury, 

Nov.  30,  . 

$1,225,  .... 

20  cattle,  $57. 

5  hogs,  est.  $10. 

32  fowl,  est.  $1. 

Dec.  5. 

Loring,  Homer, 

Ashland, 

* 

Nov.  13,  . 

$1,790,  .... 

26  cattle,  $68+. 

Nov.  27. 

40 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY 


[Feb 


List  of  Herds  condemned  by  the  Commissioner  of  Animal  Industry  because  affected 
with  or  exposed  to  Foot-and- Mouth  Disease ,  December'  12,  1914  —  Con. 


Name  of  Owxeb. 

Address. 

Date 

con¬ 

demned. 

Malone,  John,  .  .  ] 

Granby, 

Nov.  8,  . 

McDonald,  James,  . 

Brockton, 

Nov.  12,  . 

Moody,  H.  H., 

Granby, 

Nov.  17,  . 

Newell,  O.  D„ 

North  Attlebor¬ 
ough. 

Nov.  21,  . 

Noon,  John, 

Rehoboth,  . 

Dec.  8,  . 

Ollila,  M., 

Maynard, 

Nov.  14, 

Paquette,  V.,  . 

S-wansea, 

Nov.  11,  . 

Parker,  C.  M.  &  T.  B.,  . 

Warren, 

Dec.  1, 

Sumner,  W.  L., 

Attleboro,  . 

Nov.  6,  . 

Painter,  A.  H., 

Brogna,  N., 

Medford, 

Nov.  20,  . 

Young,  F.  S.,  . 

Taft,  C.  A.,  . 

Mendon, 

Nov.  5,  . 

Taft,  G.  M„  . 

Mendon, 

• 

Nov.  18,  . 

Taylor,  L.  H., 

Amherst, 

Nov.  5,  . 

Tripp,  Isaac,  . 

Westport, 

Nov.  11,  . 

Vinnicum,  G.  W.,  . 

Swansea, 

Nov.  17,  . 

Wolfson,  Louis, 

Watertown,  . 

Nov.  21,  . 

Appraisal, 
Number  Animals. 


Date 

killed. 


-$3,157.50,  . 

39  cattle,  $76.50. 
175  fowl,  est.  $1. 


Nov.  16. 


$450,  . 

6  cattle,  $75. 
$66.25 


Nov.  27. 


53  fowl,  $1.25. 


$1,890, 

26  cattle,  $70. 

50  fowl,  est.  $1. 

$325,  . 

6  cattle,  est.  $50. 
2  swine,  est.  $10. 


Dec.  3. 
.  j  Dec.  3. 


$1,350,  . 

19  cattle,  $70+. 

$600,  . 

11  cattle,  $54+. 

$50 

50  fowl,  $1. 

$2,200, 

24  cattle,  est.  $63. 

44  swine,  est.  $10. 
250  fowl,  est.  $1. 

$225, 

4  cattle,  S56J. 
$1,550, 

21  cattle,  est.  $67. 

2  pigs,  est.  $10. 

103  fowl,  est.  SI. 

4  turkeys,  est.  $3. 

[  $875, 

15  cattle,  est.  $51. 

1  hog,  est.  $10. 

$35 

<j  30  fowl,  est.  $0.80. 

1  hog,  est.  $10. 

$625 

13  cattle,  est.  S45+. 

3  swine,  est.  $10. 

$585, 

9  cattle,  $52+. 

2  pigs,  est.  $10. 

$1,001, 

13  cattle,  $77. 

$621.50,  . 

8  cattle,  est.  $73+. 
35  fowl,  est.  $1. 

$2,000,  . 

14  cows,  est.  $90. 

2  oxen,  est.  $60. 

2  sheep,  est.  $15. 

1  goat,  est.  $10. 

31  swine,  est.  $10. 
150  fowl,  est.  $1. 

$1,900,  . 

21  cattle,  est.  $84. 
125  fowl,  est.  SI. 

$525, 

6  cattle,  est.  $82+. 
30  fowl,  est.  $1. 


Dec.  11. 
Nov.  27. 


Nov.  25. 


Dec.  4. 


Nov.  18. 


Dec.  2. 


Nov.  17. 


Nov.  28. 
Nov.  13. 

Nov.  23. 


Nov.  23. 

Dec.[3. 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


41 


From  the  list  of  herds  condemned  by  the  Commissioner  of  Animal 
Industry  the  following  detail  is  shown:  — 


Number  of  cattle, . 1.099 

Number  of  oxen, .  2 

Number  of  swine, . 2,360 

Number  of  fowl, . 1,683 

Number  of  turkeys, .  4 

Number  of  sheep,  . ' .  9 

Number  of  goats, . *  4 


Miscellaneous  total, . 5,161 

48  herds. 


Total  appraisal  of  all  classes  of  animals  shows  an  aggregate  valuation 
of  8106,820.75. 

Because  of  the  many  instances  of  lump  valuation  or  appraisal  of 
different  classes  of  animals,  separate  totals  of  different  classes  for 
purpose  of  dividing  the  aggregate  appraisal  is  not  possible.  The 
attempts  made  in  the  list  are  arbitrary  and  do  not  represent  matters 
correctly. 

On  page  2  of  the  list  submit  ed  by  Commissioner  Walker,  J.  W. 
Ellsworth  of  Worcester  was  credited  with  13  cattle  killed,  appraised 
at  $86  plus  per  head.  Total  appraised  value,  $1,130. 

On  April  1,  1914,  in  the  office  of  the  assessors,  Worcester,  a  lump 
assessed  valuation  wTas  given  the  following  live  stock  of  Ellsworth:  — 

13  horses. 

12  cows. 

2  swine. 

20  fowl. 

Total  valuation  lumped  at  $1,600. 


On  page  3  of  the  list  above  referred  to,  H.  Levine  of  Worcester  was 
credited  with  13  cattle  killed,  appraised  at  $88  plus  per  head.  Total, 
$1,144. 

On  April  1,  1914,  H.  Levine  was  shown  to  have  owned  live  stock 
appraised  at  a  lump  value  of  $200.  This  stock  included  at  the  time 
of  assessment  the  following:  — 

1  horse. 

6  cows. 

Total  valuation  lumped  at  $200. 


42 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


One  hundred  and  forty-two  cattle  belonging  to  the  herd  of  W.  B. 
Fearing,  Hingham,  Mass.,  killed  on  November  30  because  of  the 
hoof-and-mouth  disease,  were  appraised  at  $10,350,  or  approximately 
$72  plus  per  head.  Six  swine  were  also  killed  on  the  same  date  for 
the  same  cause  and  were  appraised  in  total  at  $60,  or  $10  a  head. 

On  April  1,  last,  W.  B.  Fearing  owned  66  cows  and  8  swine.  In 
the  office  of  the  local  assessors  the  cattle  were  valued  for  purposes  of 
assessment,  in  total,  $2,500,  making  a  per  capita  assessed  value  of 
$37.87  plus.  Eight  swine  were  valued  at  $50,  or  a  per  capita  value  of 
$6.25. 

Note.  —  See  page  2  of  document  providing  list  and  valuation  of 
cattle  slaughtered  because  of  hoof-and-mouth  disease. 


Paid  on  Account  of  Foot-and-Mouth  Disease  up  to  December  1,  191 4 


G.  A.  Allen,  .... 

$158  00 

Eagle  Publishing, 

$6  50 

American  Cultivator  Company,  . 

50  40 

Daily  News  Publishing  Company, 

4  10 

American  Multigraph  Company, 

5  00 

D.  DelMastro, 

35  00 

Amesbury  Publishing  Company, 

8  00 

L.  M.  Dumas,  . 

16  18 

E.  Anthony  &  Son,  . 

22  40 

Enterprise  Rubber  Company, 

401  20 

Spence  Babbitt, 

10  75 

Fall  River  Daily  Herald,  . 

15  00 

F.  S.  Bancroft,. 

169  72 

F.  C.  Field,  . 

202  00 

G.  W.  Bickell,  .... 

110  97 

H.  S.  Gere  &  Sons,  . 

5  00 

H.  Beadreau,  .... 

34  00 

Globe  Newspaper  Company, 

15  00 

F.  C.  Blakely,  .... 

8  70 

O.  S.  Gordon,  . 

14  00 

H.  W.  Boisseau, 

110  00 

G.  G.  Hall,  .  ... 

19  10 

Boston  American, 

70  00 

G.  G.  Hall, 

23  50 

Boston  Daily  Advertiser,  . 

10  50 

E.  L.  Hannon, 

9  50 

Boston  Transcript,  . 

30  00 

C.  H.  Hanson, 

24  85 

Boston  Herald, 

150  00 

Havei’hill  Gazette  Company, 

3  75 

Boston  Jewish  American,  . 

3  00 

H.  G.  Jordan,  . 

74  00 

Boston  Journal, 

15  00 

Orange  Judd  Company, 

33  60 

Boulger  Shoe  Company, 

5  00 

G.  O.  Joyce, 

4  00 

C.  A.  Boutelle, 

60  00 

E.  Keenan, 

63  00 

Bridgewater  Independent, 

3  00 

- Kimball,  . 

10  88 

Mildred  E.  Brown,  . 

10  00 

E.  Knobel, 

154  93 

W.  H.  Brownell, 

25  00 

-  Lamper,  . 

6  50 

Brockton  Enterprise, 

4  50 

L.  L.  Leighton, 

37  75 

Budget  Company, 

25  00 

Lowell  Sun, 

6  00 

E.  A.  Cahill . 

199  69 

T.  E.  Maloney, 

80  60 

H.  D.  Clark,  .... 

29  20 

F.  C.  Marion,  . 

122  10 

W.  M.  Clarrage, 

41  40 

Jas.  McDonald, 

12  50 

O.  J.  Coburn,  .... 

12  00 

H.  J.  McGuinness,  . 

66  85 

Codman  Farm, 

153  75 

L.  McLean, 

4  50 

L.  D.  Conroy,  .... 

38  45 

J.  K.  Mason,  . 

25  00 

A.  M.  Cullin,  .... 

5  50 

Merrimac  Clothing,  . 

19  30 

G.  Curtis,  .... 

3  37 

- Mahoney, 

6  00 

M.  T.  Carrigan, 

212  17 

Mitchell  &  Company, 

4  25 

C.  J.  Dailey,  .... 

190  43 

S.  S.  Miller,  . 

29  25 

Daily  Times  Print,  . 

4  00 

M.  L.  Miner,  . 

13  75 

Gladys  DeWolf, 

9  03 

J.  N.  Murray,  . 

8  50 

S.  E.  DeWolf,  .... 

27  75 

North  Adams  Herald, 

9  00 

1915.]  HOUSE  - 

-No.  1751. 

43 

North  Adams  Transcript,  . 

S3 

50 

Home  Soap  Company, 

S49 

00 

H.  E.  Paige,  .... 

142 

95 

E.  M.  Howlett, 

22 

60 

J.  B.  Paige,  .... 

189 

10 

M.  A.  Howlett, 

45 

13 

C.  H.  Paquin,  .... 

84 

65 

Iver  Johnson  Sporting  Goods 

A.  L.  Parker,  .... 

50 

00 

Company,  .... 

85 

68 

T.  A.  Parker,  .... 

10 

00 

Jewish  Daily  News,  . 

6 

00 

Peabody  Press, 

6 

50 

Telegram  Newspaper  Company, 

5 

62 

H.  W.  Pierce,  .... 

95 

89 

Telegram  Publishing  Company,  . 

5 

75 

C.  H.  Perry,  .... 

277 

46 

W.  L.  Thayer,  .... 

10 

20 

Austin  Peters,  .... 

41 

52 

Thompson  Hardware  Company, 

2 

40 

B.  D.  Pierce,  .... 

92 

45 

M.  S.  Townsend, 

10 

15 

A.  H.  Reed,  .... 

49 

58 

Wm.  Ward,  .... 

78 

89 

W.  S.  Plaskett, 

27 

00 

W.  T.  White,  .... 

116 

61 

C.  H.  Playdon, 

201 

75 

B.  O.  &  G.  C.  Wilson, 

48 

00 

Post  Publishing  Company, 

140 

00 

- Wbittemore, 

13 

98 

Republic  Publishing  Company,  . 

50 

00 

B.  H.  Wiggin  Company,  . 

240 

00 

Ricketson  Baggage  Express, 

24 

00 

Worcester  Rendering  Company,  . 

25 

00 

A.  M.  Robbins, 

14 

10 

Wright  &  Potter  Printing  Com- 

A.  M.  Robbins, 

8 

25 

pany,  ..... 

133 

36 

J.  H.  Roberts,  .... 

74 

77 

J.  B.  Kelsea  Company, 

6 

00 

J.  W.  Robinson, 

15 

00 

McManus  Brothers,  . 

8 

00 

Salem  Evening  News, 

4 

75 

Marian  H.  Sargent,  . 

5 

25 

$7 

,158 

41 

Mary  E.  Sargent, 

112 

18 

Petty  Cash,  .... 

163 

34 

- Sheridan,  .... 

S35 

00 

R.  E.  Sargent,  .... 

5 

75 

Springfield  Union, 

3 

98 

Sentinel  Printing, 

2 

00 

Smith-Green  Company, 

34 

65 

M.  F.  SeweD . 

26 

86 

F.  P.  Sturgis,  .... 

140 

36 

W.  H.  Shannon, 

118 

67 

- Sullivan,  .... 

52 

80 

A.  G.  Sheldon, 

75 

75 

Taunton  Inn,  .... 

153 

80 

A.  C.  Holman, 

99 

81 

THE  COMMONWEALTH  OF  MASSACHUSETTS 


FRED  F.  WALKER 
COMMISSIONER 


OFFICE  OF 

Department  of  Animal  Industry 


STATE  HOUSE.  BOSTON 

. (Place) 

. (Date) 

This  is  to  certify  that  I  have  this  day  sold  the  United  States  Department  of 

Agriculture  and  the  Massachusetts  Department  of  Animal  Industry . 

affected  with  or  exposed  to  foot-and-mouth  disease  at  an  appraisal  of . 

Dollars,  sound  value,  of  which  I  agree  to  accept  50  per  cent  as  compensation  on 
the  part  of  the  Commonwealth. 

(Signed) . 

(Owner) 


(Signed) 


(Appraiser) 


44 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


The  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts, 

Office  of  Department  of  Animal  Industry, 

State  House,  Boston,  December  15,  1914. 

To  the  Honorable  Board  of  Economy  and  Efficiency ,  State  House ,  Boston. 

Gentlemen:  —  In  compliance  with  the  request  made  by  you  I 
enclose  herewith  copy  of  telegram  received  from  Dr.  Henry  E.  Paige, 
of  Amherst,  on  November  5,  which  te’egram  was  the  first  notification 

1  received  of  the  presence  of  foot-and-mouth  disease  in  Massachu  etts. 

I  also  enclose  copy  of  United  States  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry 
“F.  I.  Form  93B,”  which  form  was  handed  to  me  by  Dr.  A.  D. 
Melvin,  Chief  of  that  bureau,  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  who  made  the 
suggestion  that  I  draft  a  similar  form  to  be  signed  by  owners  and  the 
State’s  appraiser,  indicating  the  willingness  on  the  part  of  the  owner 
to  accept,  approved  on  the  part  of  the  appraiser,  the  amount  thereon 
stated  as  the  sum  representing  the  value  of  animals  to  be  destroyed  on 
the  premises  of  the  owner  signing  the  form,  because  affected  with  or 
exposed  to  foot-and-mouth  disease.  The  form  used  by  this  depart¬ 
ment,  as  you  will  observe,  although  not  an  exact  copy,  is  substantially 
such. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

(Signed)  FRED  F.  WALKER, 
Enclosures.  •  Commissioner. 

2  HS  MF  24  Paid.  11.29  a.m. 

Amherst,  Mass.,  Nov.  5,  1914.  Filed  11.15  a.m. 

Fred  F.  Walker,  State  House,  Boston,  Mass. 

James  and  I  feel  certain  of  the  existence  of  foot-and-mouth  disease 
among  cattle  on  premises  George  Henry.  Everything  placed  under 
strictest  quarantine. 

H.  E.  Paige. 


F,  I.  Form  93  B. 

UNITED  STATES  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE, 

BUREAU  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY. 

This  is  to  Certify  that  I  have  this  day  sold  to  the  United  States  Department 

of  Agriculture . affected  with  or  exposed  to  foot-and-mouth 

disease  at  an  appraisal  of . Dollars,  sound  value,  of  which  I  agree 

to  accept  50  per  cent  as  compensation  in  full  from  the  said  Department. 

(Signed) . 


Place 

Date 


(Owner) 


8—2822 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


45 


The  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts, 

Commission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency, 

Room  110,  State  House,  Boston,  Dec.  16,  1914. 

Thomas  J.  Boynton,  Esq.,  Attorney-General,  State  House,  Boston. 

Dear  Sir:  —  This  commission  hands  you  herewith  copy  of  a  form 
prescribed  by  the  Department  of  Animal  Industry  distributed  to  and 
filled  in  by  owners  of  cattle  slaughtered  in  he  recent  attempts  made 
by  the  Commonwealth  and  the  Federal  government  to  stamp  out  the 
hoof-and-mouth  disease  among  live  stock  within  this  State. 

The  commission  requests  the  opinion  of  your  office  upon  the  follow¬ 
ing  points: 

1.  Definition  of  the  legal  nature  of  such  document  when  filled  and 
signed  as  provided. 

2.  General  or  statutory  power,  if  any,  of  the  Department  of  Animal 
Industry,  to  provide  for  such  certificates. 

3.  Nature  and  extent  of  rights  and  obligations,  if  any,  and  between 
what  parties,  arising  from  certificate  properly  executed  in  compliance 
with  form  as  enclosed. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)  FRANCIS  X.  TYRRELL, 

Chairman. 


Saturday,  Dec.  19,  1914. 

Air.  Roger  Sherman  Hoar,  of  the  Attorney-General’s  department, 
called  Chairman  Tyrrell  on  the  telephone,  and  the  following  is  the 
gist  of  the  statement  made  by  him: 

That  he  received  a  communication  from  this  commission,  requesting 
an  opinion  as  to  whether  or  not  the  document  used  by  Air.  Fred  F. 
Walker,  Commissioner  of  Animal  Industry,  in  his  campaign  against 
the  foot-and-mouth  disease  in  Alassachusetts,  is  a  bill  of  sale.  Air. 
Hoar  was  of  the  opinion  that  it  could  be  given  that  construction,  but 
thought  it  would  not  be  advisable  for  the  Attorney-General’s  depart¬ 
ment  to  go  on  record  as  handing  down  an  opinion  to  that  effect,  unless 
this  commission  insisted  upon  same,  for  it  might  create  a  great  deal  of 
trouble  for  the  Commonwealth  which  should,  if  possible,  be  avoided. 

Air.  Hoar  further  stated  that  Air.  Walker  had  conferred  with  him, 
and  after  such  conference  the  document  referred  to  was  greatly 
modified,  so  that  in  its  present  form  it  could  not  be  considered  a  bill 
of  sale.  Air.  Hoar  also  stated  that  the  Federal  form  was  recently 
modified. 


46 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


The  modification  of  these  forms  is  worthy  of  more  than  passing 
notice  by  this  commission,  inasmuch  as  the  modification  of  both  forms 
has  taken  place  subsequent  to  this  commission’s  directing  attention  to 
the  danger  of  the  document  in  its  original  form. 


Modified  form  not  in  use  prior  to  Dec.  21,  1914. 


FRED  F.  WALKER 
COMMISSIONER 


THE  COMMONWEALTH  OF  MASSACHUSETTS 
OFFICE  OF 

Department  of  Animal  Industry 


STATE  HOUSE,  BOSTON 

(Form  for  Agreement.) 

. (Place) 

. (Date) 

I  hereby  agree  to  accept  as  compensation  in  full  from  the  Commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts,  in  the  event  that  the  Legislature  appropriates  funds  out  of  which 
payment  can  be  made,  fifty  (50)  per  cent,  of  the  appraised  valuation  of  all 
animals  destroyed  (of  property  destroyed  or  damaged  in  disinfecting),  on 
account  of  the  existence  of  contagious  foot  and  mouth  disease,  which  appraised 

valuation  is . Dollars. 

This  agreement  is  made  without  prejudice  to  my  right,  if  any,  to  receive  fur¬ 
ther  compensation  from  the  United  States. 

(Signed) . 

(Owner) 


The  foregoing  is  a  correct  statement  of  the  valuation  as  appraised  by  me. 

(Signed) . 

(Appraiser) 


F.  I.  Form  99  B. 

UNITED  STATES  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE, 

BUREAU  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY. 

I  hereby  agree  to  accept  as  compensation  in  full  from  the  United  States,  in 
the  event  that  the  Congress  appropriates  funds  out  of  which  payment  can  be 
made, . dollars,  which  is  50  per  cent  of  the  valuation  of  all  ani¬ 

mals  destroyed  on  account  of  the  existence  of  contagious  foot-and-mouth  disease. 

(Signed) . 

(Owner) 

Place . 

Date . 

8—2836 


1915.] 


HOUSE— No.  1751. 


47 


The  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts, 

Commission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency, 

Room  110,  State  House,  Boston,  Dec.  16,  1914. 

United  States  Department  of  Agriculture ,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  Washing¬ 
ton,  D.  C. 

Chief  of  Bureau. 

The  Massachusetts  Commission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency,  es¬ 
tablished  by  an  act  of  the  Legislature  for  the  purpose  of  investigating 
the  management  and  finances  of  all  commissions,  boards  and  under¬ 
takings  of  the  Commonwealth,  is  now  engaged  in  an  investigation  of 
the  foot-and-mouth  disease  in  this  State. 

In  order  to  complete  the  work  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  this 
commission  have  a  copy  of  all  the  correspondence  between  the  Massa¬ 
chusetts  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  and  the  Bureau  of  Animal 
Industry  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  on  this 
subject. 

You  will  confer  a  great  favor  upon  this  commission  by  submitting 
at  the  earliest  possible  moment  the  material  referred  to  in  this  com¬ 
munication.  Thanking  you  in  advance  for  same,  I  remain, 

Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)  FRANCIS  X.  TYRRELL, 

Chairman. 


Department  of  Agriculture, 

Bureau  of  Animal  Industry, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  Dec.  26,  1914. 

Mr.  Francis  X.  Tyrrell,  Chairman,  Commission  on  Economy  and  Efficiency, 

Room  110,  State  House.  Boston,  Mass. 

Dear  Sir:  —  I  beg  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the 
16th  instant  requesting  'copies  of  all  correspondence  between  the 
Massachusetts  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  and  the  Bureau  of  Animal 
Industry  of  the  United  States,  in  order  that  you  may  complete  certain 
investigations  which  you  are  now  making.  As  this  correspondence  is 
undoubtedly  on  file  in  one  of  the  offices  of  your  State  institution,  I 
would  suggest  it  be  obtained  there. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)  A.  D.  MELVIN, 

Chief  of  Bureaxi. 


48 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


Extract  from  the  Daily  Journal  of  the  Commission  on  Economy 
and  Efficiency,  Monday,  Dec.  21,  1914. 

Chairman  Tyrrell,  in  conference  with  Commissioners  White  and 
Wood,  stated  that  it  was  called  to  his  attention  that  Mr.  Myron  T. 
Carrigan  of  Concord,  who  was  acting  as  appraiser  for  the  Department 
of  Animal  Industry  in  the  campaign  against  the  foot-and-mouth 
disease,  is  a  business  partner  of  Fred  F.  Walker,  Commissioner  of 
Animal  Industry.  This  information  was  obtained  by  the  chairman  on 
Saturday  evening,  December  19.  After  discussing  this  matter  with 
the  commissioners  the  chairman  suggested  that  Myron  T.  Carrigan 
be  summoned  to  appear  before  this  commission  on  this  date,  and  in 
compliance  with  that  suggestion  got  in  communication  with  Mr. 
Carrigan  over  the  telephone.  Mr.  Carrigan  stated  that  he  would  be 
at  the  rooms  of  the  commission  this  afternoon  shortly  after  three 
o’clock. 

Extract  from  Daily  Journal  of  the  Commission  on  Economy 
and  Efficiency,  Monday,  Dec.  21,  1914. 

In  response  to  a  telephonic  communication  earlier  in  the  day,  Mr. 
Myron  T.  Carrigan  of  Concord  conferred  with  the  full  board  at 
5.15  p.m. 

It  developed  at  this  conference  that  the  business  of  Mr.  Carrigan, 
who  has  been  serving  as  an  appraiser  for  the  Department  of  Animal 
Industry  in  the  epidemic  of  the  foot-and-mouth  disease,  is  that  of 
farming  and  cattle  buying.  Examination  of  Mr.  Carrigan  developed 
the  fact  that  his  principal  occupation  is  that  of  buying  and  selling 
cattle,  and  that  the  farming  is  but  secondary,  inasmuch  as  such 
farming  provides  for  the  furnishing  of  feed  for  the  cattle  raised,  bought 
and  sold. 

Mr.  Carrigan  stated  that  he  was  a  business  partner  of  Mr.  Fred 
Freeland  Walker  in  buying,  raising  and  selling  blooded  stock,  and  that 
the  extent  of  this  business  was  between  one  and  two  thousand  dollars 
annuallv. 

c- 

He  stated  that  no  attempt  was  made  to  determine  the  value  of 
cows  as  milk  producers  other  than  the  word  of  the  farmer  or  herds¬ 
man.  No  records  were  examined  to  determine  the  amount  of  milk 
produced  by  the  destroyed  cattle,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  on  the 
milk-giving  cows  the  appraised  price  was  fixed  as  to  its  dairy  value; 
that  no  records  were  made  other  than  to  show  the  number  of  cattle 
killed  and  the  appraisal  price  on  same;  and  that  wherein  they  found 
any  of  the  cattle  affected,  even  in  cases  where  a  single  instance  of  the 
disease  was  shown,  the  entire  herds  were  killed  off. 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


49 


He  stated  that  he  received  for  his  services  $10  per  day  and  ex¬ 
penses.  His  concluding  statement  was  that  he  felt  that  they  had  the 
disease  under  control,  if  not  entirely  exterminated. 

Payments  made  in  the  past  year  by  Commissioner  Walker  to 
Langdon  Frothingham,  M.D.V.,  for  expert  services  relative  to  work 
performed  by  the  Department  of  Animal  Industry,  whose  name  does 
not  appear  in  P.  D.  90.  (Dr.  Frothingham  is  at  present  chairman  of 
the  Board  of  Registration  in  Veterinary  Medicine.)  The  payments 
are  divided  into  four  main  divisions:  (1)  personal  payment,  which  is 
in  the  nature  of  a  monthly  retainer,  (2)  amounts  paid  to  the  doctor 
for  laboratory  assistance,  (3)  amounts  paid  to  same  for  care  of  animals, 
(4)  amounts  paid  same  for  laboratory  supplies  and  feed  for  animals. 


Retainer. 

Laboratory 

Assistance. 

Care  of 
Animals. 

Laboratory  Supplies 
or  Food. 

Dec.,  1913,  ...... 

$250  00 

$24  50 

$22  00 

$8  09  Lab.  Sup. 

Jan.,  1914,  . . 

250  00 

10  00 

22  00 

12  80  (feed  for  animals). 

Feb.,  1914,  . 

150  00 

10  00 

22  00 

11  35  Lab.  Sup. 

Mar.,  1914,  ...... 

250  00 

10  00 

22  00 

27  32  Feed  and  Lab.  Sup. 

Apr.,  1914, . 

250  00 

10  00 

22  00 

1  00  Lab.  Sup. 

May,  1914,  . . 

250  00 

10  00 

23  00 

5  00  Lab.  Sup. 

June,  1914, . 

250  00 

10  00 

20  00 

8  00  Lab.  Sup. 

f  10  00  Feed. 

Julv,  1914,  ...... 

250  00 

- 

27  00 

i 

• 

[  12  00  Lab.  Sup. 

Aug.,  1914 . 

250  00 

10  00 

22  00 

8  70  Feed. 

Sept.,  1914,  ..... 

250  00 

22  00 

22  00 

2  25  Lab.  Sup. 

Oct.,  1914, . 

250  00 

10  00 

20  00 

- 

f  10  80  Feed. 

Nov.,  1914,  . 

250  00 

10  00 

24  00 

✓ 

[  2  40  Lab.  Sup. 

$2,900  00 

$136  50 

$268  00 

$119  71 

$2,900  00 
136  50 
268  00 

119  71 


$3,424  21  Grand  total. 


During  the  year  past  L.  H.  Howard,  M.D.V.,  a  member  of  the 
Massachusetts  Board  of  Registration  in  Veterinary  Medicine,  employed 
as  consulting  veterinarian  to  the  Commissioner  of  Animal  Industry, 
received  a  total  of  $1,744.66  for  services. 

No  regular  stipend  was  arranged,  —  particular  payments  being 
made  by  mutual  agreement  between  the  doctor  and  the  Commissioner 
of  Animal  Industry. 


50 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


Cattle  Bureau 
abolished. 


Department 
of  Animal 
Industry 
established. 


Powers  and 
duties  of 
Commissioner 
of  Animal 
Industry. 


Re  sects.  4-7, 
ch.  90,  R.  L.; 
cf.  sect.  3,  ch. 
116,  Acts  1902; 
sect.  1,  ch.  220, 
Acts  1903;  ch. 
329,  Acts  1908; 
ch.  474,  Acts 
1909;  ch.  6, 
Acts  1911; 
sect.  4,  ch.  608, 
Acts  1912;  ch. 
329,  Acts  1913. 


Cf.  sect.  4,  ch. 
608,  Acts  1912; 
cf.  also  ch.  646, 
Acts  1913,  in 


References  in  re  Animal  Industry. 


Section  1,  Chapter  608,  Acts  of  1912. 

The  cattle  bureau  of  the  state  board  of  agriculture  is  hereby 
abolished. 

Section  2,  Chapter  608,  Acts  of  1912. 

A  department  is  hereby  created  to  be  known  as  the  Department 
of  Animal  Industry. 

Section  4,  Chapter  608,  Acts  of  1912. 

The  commissioner  of  animal  industry  shall  have  the  powers  and 
perform  the  duties  heretofore  conferred  and  imposed  upon  the 
board  of  cattle  commissioners  and  the  chief  of  the  cattle  bureau, 
and  shall  have  supervision  of  contagious  diseases  among  domestic 
animals  in  the  city  of  Boston:  but  no  orders  or  regulations  made  by 
him  under  authority  of  sections  four  and  seven  of  chapter  90  of  the 
Revised  Laws,  or  of  section  seven  of  the  said  chapter,  as  amended 
by  section  1  of  chapter  297  of  the  Acts  of  1911,  shall  take  effect 
until  approved  by  the  governor  and  council. 

Section  4,  Chapter  90,  Revised  Laws. 

The  board  may  from  time  to  time  make  orders  and  regulations 
relative  to  the  prevention,  suppression  and  extirpation  of  conta¬ 
gious  diseases  of  domestic  animals,  and  relative  to  the  inspection, 
examination,  quarantine,  care  and  treatment  or  destruction  of 
such  animals  which  are  affected  with,  or  have  been  exposed  to, 
such  diseases,  and  relative  to  the  burial  or  other  disposal  of  their 
carcasses  and  the  cleansing  and  disinfection  of  districts,  buildings 
or  places  in  which  such  contagion  exists  or  has  existed.  It  shall  also 
from  time  to  time  make  and  prescribe  forms  for  records  of  inspec¬ 
tors,  certificates  of  examinations,  notices  and  orders  of  quarantine, 
orders  for  killing  and  burial,  and  for  returns  of  inspectors  which 
are  required  by  this  chapter.  All  orders  and  regulations  made  by 
the  board  shall  be  entered  on  its  records,  and  a  copy  thereof  shall 
be  sent  to  each  inspector  in  the  city  or  town  to  which  the  orders 
or  regulations  apply,  and  be  published  by  him  in  such  manner  as 
the  orders  or  regulations  may  prescribe. 

Section  6,  Chapter  90,  Revised  Laws. 

If  the  board  or  any  one  of  its  members  or  agents,  by  examination 
of  a  case  of  contagious  disease  of  domestic  animals,  is  of  opinion  that 
the  public  good  so  requires,  it  or  he  shall  cause  the  diseased  animal 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — Xo.  1751. 


51 


to  be  securely  isolated  or  to  be  killed  without  appraisal  or  pay¬ 
ment.  An  order  for  killing  shall  be  issued  in  writing  by  the  board 
or  any  of  its  members,  may  be  directed  to  an  inspector  or  other 
person,  and  shall  contain  such  direction  as  to  the  examination  and 
disposal  of  the  carcass  and  the  cleansing  and  disinfection  of  the 
premises  where  such  animal  was  condemned  as  the  board  or  com¬ 
missioner  consider  expedient.  A  reasonable  amount  may  be  paid 
from  the  treasury  of  the  commonwealth  for  the  expense  of  such 
killing  and  burial.  If,  thereafter,  it  appears,  upon  post  mortem 
examination  or  otherwise,  that  such  animal  was  free  from  the  dis¬ 
ease  for  which  it  was  condemned,  a  reasonable  amount  therefor 
shall  be  paid  to  the  owner  by  the  commonwealth.  If  any  cattle 
which  are  condemned  as  afflicted  with  tuberculosis  are  killed  under 
the  provisions  of  this  section,  the  full  value  thereof  at  the  time  of 
condemnation  not  exceeding  forty  dollars  for  any  one  animal,  shall 
be  paid  to  the  owner  by  the  commonwealth  if  such  animal  has  been 
owned  within  the  commonwealth  six  consecutive  months  prior  to 
being  killed,  or  if  it  has  been  inspected  and  satisfactory  proof  has 
been  furnished  to  the  board  by  certificate  or  otherwise  that  it  is 
free  from  disease,  and  if  the  owner  has  not,  prior  thereto,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  board,  by  wilful  act  or  neglect,  contributed  to  the 
spread  of  tuberculosis;  but  such  decision  shall  not  deprive  the 
owner  of  the  right  of  arbitration  as  hereinafter  provided. 

Section  10,  Chapter  90,  Revised  Laws. 

If  animals  are  brought  into  this  commonwealth  from  places  out¬ 
side,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  board,  are  infected,  they  may  be 
seized  and  quarantined  by  the  commissioners  at  the  expense  of 
their  owners  or  consignees,  so  long  as  the  public  safety  requires; 
and,  if  in  their  opinion  safety  so  requires,  they  may  cause  such 
animals  to  be  killed  without  appraisal  or  payment. 

Section  28,  Chapter  90,  Revised  Laws. 

Contagious  diseases,  under  the  provisions  of  this  chapter,  shall 
include  glanders,  farcy,  contagious  pleuro-pneumonia,  tuberculosis, 
Texas  fever,  foot-and-mouth  disease,  rinderpest,  hog  cholera, 
rabies,  anthrax  or  anthracoid  diseases,  sheep  scab  and  actinomycosis. 

Section  33,  Chapter  90,  Revised  Laws. 

Xo  compensation  shall  be  allowed  by  the  commonwealth  to  an 
owner  of  condemned  cattle  who  has  failed  to  comply  with  the  rea¬ 
sonable  regulations  of  the  board  relative  to  cleanliness,  ventilation, 
light,  disinfection  and  water  supply.  An  owner  of  cattle  who 
refuses  to  comply  with  any  such  regulation  shall  be  punished  by  a 
fine  ol  not  more  than  fifty  dollars. 


re  payment  of 
sums  not  ex¬ 
ceeding  by 
statute  S50  for 
horses,  mules 
and  asses  con¬ 
demned  as 
afflicted  with 
glanders. 


Amended  by 
ch.  6,  Acts 
1911,  including 
mange  as  a 
contagious 
disease. 


52 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


Cattle  bureau 
of  state  board 
of  agriculture 
abolished. 

Department  of 
animal  indus¬ 
try  created. 

Commissioner 
of  animal  in¬ 
dustry  to  be 
appointed  for 
a  term  of  three 
years. 


Salary,  etc. 


Powers  and 
duties  of. 


Slje  (EflmmmtuieaUI)  of  fHaBHarljuoetto. 


LAWS  RELATING  TO  CONTAGIOUS  DISEASES  OF 

DOMESTIC  ANIMALS. 


Acts  of  1912,  Chapter  608. 

An  Act  to  abolish  the  Cattle  Bureau  of  the  State  Board 

of  Agriculture  and  to  create  a  Department  of  Animal 

Industry. 

Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  as  follows: 

Section  1.  The  cattle  bureau  of  the  state  board  of  agriculture 
is  hereby  abolished. 

Section  2.  A  department  is  hereby  created  to  be  known  as  the 
department  of  animal  industry. 

Section  3.  The  governor,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
council,  shall  appoint  as  the  head  of  the  said  department  a  com¬ 
missioner  of  animal  industrv,  who  shall  hold  office  for  a  term  of 
three  years  from  the  date  of  his  appointment,  and  upon  the  expira¬ 
tion  of  the  term  of  office  of  such  commissioner,  or  upon  the  occur¬ 
rence  of  a  vacancy  in  said  office,  the  governor  shall  appoint  a  suc¬ 
cessor  for  a  like  term.  The  commissioner  of  animal  industry  shall 
receive  an  annual  salary  of  thirty-five  hundred  dollars  and  the 
amount  of  his  necessary  expenses,  and  he  may  appoint  a  clerk  at 
an  annual  salary  of  twelve  hundred  dollars. 

Section  4.  The  commissioner  of  animal  industry  shall  have 
the  powers  and  perform  the  duties  heretofore  conferred  and  imposed 
upon  the  board  of  cattle  commissioners  and  the  chief  of  the  cattle 
bureau,  and  shall  have  supervision  of  the  matter  of  contagious 
diseases  among  domestic  animals  in  the  city  of  Boston;  but  no 
orders  or  regulations  made  by  him  under  authority  of  sections  four 
and  seven  of  chapter  ninety  of  the  Recused  Laws,  or  of  section 
seven  of  the  said  chapter,  as  amended  by  section  one  of  chapter 
two  hundred  and  ninety-seven  of  the  acts  of  the  year  nineteen 
hundred  and  eleven,  shall  take  effect  until  approved  by  the  gov¬ 
ernor  and  council.  The  commissioner  shall  make  a  written  report 
on  or  before  the  tenth  day  of  January  of  each  year  to  the  general 
court. 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


53 


\ 


Section  5.  Section  eleven  of  said  chapter  ninety,  as  amended 
by  section  one  of  chapter  five  hundred  and  fifteen  of  the  acts  of  the 
year  nineteen  hundred  and  eight,  is  hereby  further  amended  by  strik¬ 
ing  out  the  words  “chief  of  the  cattle  bureau  of  the  state  board  of 
agriculture  ”,  in  the  ninth  and  tenth  lines,  and  inserting  in  place 
thereof  the  words :  —  commissioner  of  animal  industry,  by  striking 
out  the  words  “but  no  such  notice  shall  be  required  in  the  city  of 
Boston  relative  to  glanders,  fare}"  or  rabies,  which  shall  be  cared 
for  by  the  board  of  health  of  said  city’’,  in  the  thirteenth  to  the 
sixteenth  lines,  both  inclusive,  and  by  striking  out  the  words  “chief 
of  the  cattle  bureau”,  in  the  nineteenth  line,  and  inserting  in  place 
thereof  the  words :  —  commissioner  of  animal  industry,  —  -  so  as  to 
read  as  follows:  —  Section  11.  The  board  of  health  of  a  city  or 
town,  any  member  or  agent  thereof  or  any  other  person  who  has 
knowledge  of  or  reason  to  suspect  the  existence  of  any  contagious 
disease  among  any  domestic  animals  in  this  commonwealth,  or 
that  any  domestic  animal  is  affected  with  such  contagious  disease, 
whether  such  knowledge  is  obtained  by  personal  examination  or 
otherwise,  shall  immediately  give  notice  thereof  in  writing  to  the 
commissioner  of  animal  industry,  or  to  an  inspector  of  animals  for 
the  city  or  town  where  the  animal  is  kept.  Whoever  fails  to  give 
such  notice  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  one  hundred 
dollars.  Upon  the  receipt  of  such  notice  by  said  inspector,  he  shall 
proceed  as  provided  in  sections  nineteen  to  twenty-two,  both  in¬ 
clusive.  Upon  receipt  of  such  notice  by  the  commissioner  of  animal 
industry,  he  shall  inspect  or  cause  his  agent  to  inspect  such  animal, 
and  thereafter  shall  proceed  as  provided  in  section  six. 

Section  6.  Section  twelve  of  said  chapter  ninety,  as  amended  by 
section  one  ot  chapter  one  hundred  and  forty-three  of  the  acts  of 
the  year  nineteen  hundred  and  eleven,  is  hereby  further  amended 
by  striking  out  the  words  “  chief  of  the  cattle  bureau  of  the  state 
board  of  agriculture”,  in  the  fifth,  sixth  and  eighth  lines,  and  in¬ 
serting  in  each  instance  in  place  thereof  the  words :  —  commissioner 
of  animal  industry,  and  by  striking  out  the  last  sentence,  so  as  to 
read  as  follows:  —  Section  12.  The  mayor  and  aldermen  in  cities, 
except  Boston,  and  the  selectmen  in  towns  shall  annually,  in  March, 
nominate  one  or  more  inspectors  of  animals,  and  before  the  first  day 
of  April  shall  send  to  the  commissioner  of  animal  industry  the  name, 
address  and  occupation  of  each  nominee.  Such  nominee  shall  not 
be  appointed  until  approved  by  the  commissioner  of  animal  in¬ 
dustry. 

Section  7.  The  provisions  of  chapter  ninety  of  the  Revised 
Laws,  as  amended,  relating  to  inspectors  of  animals  in  cities  and 
towns  shall  apply  to  any  person  or  persons  officially  performing  the 
functions  of  an  inspector  of  animals  in  the  city  of  Boston,  except  the 


54 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


provisions  with  reference  to  the  nomination,  approval  and  com¬ 
pensation  of  inspectors  of  animals. 

Section  8.  The  clerks,  stenographers,  consulting  veterinarians, 
agents  and  assistants,  who  are  registered  at  the  time  of  the  passage 
of  this  act  under  the  civil  service  as  clerk,  stenographer,  consulting 
veterinarian,  agent  or  assistant  of  the  cattle  bureau  of  the  state 
board  of  agriculture,  shall  be  transferred  by  the  civil  sendee  com¬ 
missioners  from  the  said  bureau  as  such  clerk,  stenographer,  con¬ 
sulting  veterinarian,  agent  or  assistant  to  the  department  of  animal 
industry,  without  further  qualification. 

Section  9.  So  much  of  section  three  of  this  act  as  authorizes 
the  appointment  of  the  commissioner  of  animal  industry  shall  take 
effect  upon  the  passage  of  this  act,  and  the  remainder  of  the  act 
shall  take  effect  upon  the  appointment  and  qualification  of  the  com¬ 
missioner  of  animal  industry. 

Section  10.  All  acts  and  parts  of  acts  inconsistent  herewith  are 
hereby  repealed.  [Approved  May  20 ,  1912. 

Note.  —  Since,  by  the  provisions  of  section  three  of  the  above 
chapter,  the  powers  and  duties  heretofore  conferred  and  imposed 
upon  the  Board  of  Cattle  Commissioners  and  the  Chief  of  the  Cattle 
Bureau  of  the  State  Board  of  Agriculture  now  devolve  upon  the 
Commissioner  of  Animal  Industry,  the  words  “Commissioner  of 
Animal  Industry”  should  be  substituted  for  “Board  of  Cattle  Com¬ 
missioners”  or  “Chief  of  the  Cattle  Bureau”  wherever  found  in  the 
laws  which  follow. 


Revised  Laws,  Chapter  90. 


Of  the  Board  of  Cattle  Commissioners  and  of  Contagious 

Diseases  of  Domestic  Animals. 


Board  of  cattle 
commissioners. 
Superseded  by 
chap.  608,  1912. 


Clerks,  officers, 
agents,  etc. 
Modified  by 
1912,  608,  §  3. 


Section  1.  [There  shall  be  a  board  of  cattle  commissioners  con¬ 
sisting  of  three  persons,  one  of  whom  shall  annually,  in  May,  be 
appointed  by  the  governor,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
council,  for  a  term  of  three  years  from  the  first  day  of  the  following 
June.  The  governor  and  council  may  remove  any  member  of  the 
board  and  mav  revoke  the  commissions  of  the  entire  board  if,  in 
their  opinion,  the  public  safety  will  permit.  Each  member  of  the 
board  shall  receive,  as  compensation,  not  more  than  five  dollars  a 
day  for  each  day  of  actual  service  and  his  actual  travelling  expenses 
which  have  been  necessarily  incurred.] 

Section  2.  The  board  may  appoint  a  clerk  who  shall  receive 
such  compensation,  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars  a  year,  as 
the  board  may  determine.  It  may  also  from  time  to  time  appoint 
officers,  agents  and  assistants,  who  shall  have  the  authorit}r  and 
powers  of  inspectors  under  the  provisions  of  section  twenty-three 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — No.  1751. 


55 


shall  receive  such  compensation  as  the  board  may  determine  and 
may  at  any  time  be  removed  by  the  board. 

Section  3.  The  board  shall  keep  a  full  record  of  its  doings  and  Records  and 

report . 

shall  annually,  on  or  before  the  tenth  day  of  January,  or  sooner  if  Modified  by 
required  by  the  governor,  make  a  report  thereof  to  the  general  92’6^8’§4‘ 
court,  an  abstract  of  which  shall  be  printed  in  the  annual  report  of 
the  state  board  of  agriculture. 

Section  4.  The  board  may  from  time  to  time  make  orders  and  Regulations, 

record  of. 

regulations  relative  to  the  prevention,  suppression  and  extirpation  Modified’by 
of  contagious  diseases  of  domestic  animals,  and  relative  to  the  1J12, 608, §  4* 
inspection,  examination,  quarantine,  care  and  treatment  or  destruc¬ 
tion  of  such  animals  which  are  affected  with,  or  have  been  exposed 
to,  such  diseases,  and  relative  to  the  burial  or  other  disposal  of  their 
carcasses  and  the  cleansing  and  disinfection  of  districts,  buildings  or 
places  in  which  such  contagion  exists  or  has  existed.  It  shall  also 
from  time  to  time  make  and  prescribe  forms  for  records  of  inspectors, 
certificates  of  examinations,  notices  and  orders  of  quarantine,  orders 
for  killing  and  burial,  and  for  returns  of  inspectors  which  are  required 
by  this  chapter.  All  orders  and  regulations  made  by  the  board 
shall  be  entered  on  its  records,  and  a  copy  thereof  shall  be  sent  to 
each  inspector  in  the  city  or  town  to  which  the  orders  or  regulations 
apply,  and  be  published  by  him  in  such  manner  as  the  orders  or 
regulations  may  prescribe. 

Section  5.  The  board  may  establish  hospitals  or  quarantine  Hospitals  and 
stations,  with  proper  accommodations,  wherein,  under  prescribed  auarantine- 
regulations,  animals  selected  by  it  may  be  confined  and  treated  lor 
the  purpose  of  determining  the  characteristics  of  a  specific  contagion 
and  the  methods  by  which  it  may  be  disseminated  or  destroyed, 
and  may  direct  inspectors  to  enforce  and  carry  into  effect  all  regu¬ 
lations  made  from  time  to  time  ror  that  purpose. 

Section  6.  If  the  board  or  any  one  of  its  members  or  agents,  isolation,  etc., 
by  examination  of  a  case  of  contagious  disease  of  domestic  animals,  anfmais.ed 
is  of  opinion  that  the  public  good  so  requires,  it  or  he  shall  cause 
the  diseased  animal  to  be  securely  isolated  or  to  be  killed  without 
appraisal  or  payment.  An  order  for  killing  shall  be  issued  in 
writing  by  the  board  or  any  of  its  members,  may  be  directed  to  an 
inspector  or  other  person,  and  shall  contain  such  direction  as  to  the 
examination  and  disposal  of  the  carcass  and  the  cleansing  and  dis¬ 
infection  of  the  premises  where  such  animal  was  condemned  as  the 
board  or  commissioner  consider  expedient.  A  reasonable  amount 
may  be  paid  from  the  treasury  of  the  commonwealth  for  the  expense 
of  such  killing  and  burial.  If  thereafter  it  appears,  upon  post 
mortem  examination  or  otherwise,  that  such  animal  was  free  from 
the  disease  for  which  it  was  condemned,  a  reasonable  amount  there¬ 
for  shall  be  paid  to  the  owner  by  the  commonwealth.  If  any  cattle 


56 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


Examinations 
by  the  board 
under  oath. 


Aid  by 
sheriffs,  etc. 


Quarantine 
of  imported 
animals. 


which  are  condemned  as  afflicted  with  tuberculosis  are  killed  under 
the  provisions  of  this  section,  the  full  value  thereof  at  the  time  of 
condemnation,  not  exceeding  forty  dollars  for  any  one  animal,  shall 
be  paid  to  the  owner  by  the  commonwealth  if  such  animal  has  been 
owned  within  the  commonv/ealth  six  consecutive  months  prior  to 
being  killed,  or  if  it  has  been  inspected  and  satisfactory  proof  has 
been  furnished  to  the  board  by  certificate  or  otherwise  that  it  is 
free  from  disease,  and  if  the  owner  has  not,  prior  thereto,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  board,  by  wilful  act  or  neglect,  contributed  to  the 
spread  of  tuberculosis;  but  such  decision  shall  not  deprive  the 
owner  of  the  right  of  arbitration  as  hereinafter  provided. 

Section  8.  The  board  may  examine  under  oath  all  persons  who 
are  believed  to  possess  knowledge  of  material  facts  relative  to  the 
existence  or  dissemination,  or  danger  of  dissemination,  of  contagious 
diseases  among  domestic  animals,  or  relative  to  any  other  matter 
within  the  provisions  of  this  chapter  and  each  member  of  said 
board,  for  the  purposes  of  this  chapter,  shall  have  all  the  powers 
vested  in  justices  of  the  peace  by  chapters  one  hundred  and  sixty- 
one  and  one  hundred  and  seventy-five  to  take  depositions,  to 
compel  witnesses  to  attend  and  testify  before  said  board  and  to 
administer  oaths.  Witnesses  shall  receive  the  same  fees  for  attend¬ 
ance  and  travel  as  witnesses  before  the  superior  court.  The  expense 
of  procuring  the  attendance  of  such  witnesses  shall  be  paid  by  the 
commonwealth.  Copies  of  the  records  of  said  board,  or  of  any 
order  or  regulation  issued  by  it  or  by  any  of  its  members,  if  duly 
certified  by  its  clerk,  and  any  certificate  by  its  clerk  of  the  issuing, 
recording,  delivering  or  publishing  of  such  orders  or  regulations 
under  the  provisions  of  section  four,  shall  be  competent  evidence 
of  such  fact  in  any  tribunal. 

Section  9.  A  member  of  the  board  or  an  inspector  may 
require  sheriffs,  constables  and  police  officers  to  assist  him  in  the 
performance  of  his  duties,  and  sheriffs,  constables  and  police  officers 
shall  upon  request  assist  such  commissioner  or  inspector  and  shall 
have  the  same  powers  and  protection,  while  engaged  in  the  perform¬ 
ance  of  their  duties,  as  peace  officers. 

Section  10.  If  animals  are  brought  into  this  commonwealth 
from  places  outside,  Which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  board,  are  infected, 
they  may  be  seized  and  quarantined  by  the  commissioners  at  the 
expense  of  their  ov/ners  or  consignees,  so  long  as  the  public  safety 
requires;  and,  if  in  their  opinion  safety  so  requires,  they  may  cause 
such  animals  to  be  killed  without  appraisal  or  payment. 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — Xo.  1751. 


57 


(Section  11  of  Chapter  90  of  the  Revised  Laws,  as  amended  by  Chapter 

608,  Acts  of  1912.) 

Section  11.  The  hoard  of  health  of  a  city  or  town,  any  member  Notice  of  sus- 

v  poctod  coiitS” 

or  agent  thereof  or  any  other  person  who  has  knowledge  of  or  reason  gious  disease 
to  suspect  the  existence  of  any  contagious  disease  among  any  rommissioner 
domestic  animals  in  this  commonwealth,  or  that  any  domestic?*^™1 
animal  is  affected  with  such  contagious  disease,  whether  such 
knowledge  is  obtained  by  personal  examination  or  otherwise,  shall 
immediately  give  notice  thereof  in  writing  to  the  commissioner  of 
animal  industry,  or  to  an  inspector  of  animals  for  the  city  or  town 
w*here  the  animal  is  kept.  "Whoever  fails  to  give  such  notice  shall 
be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  one  hundred  dollars.  Upon 
the  receipt  of  such  notice,  by  said  inspector,  he  shall  proceed  as 
provided  in  sections  nineteen  to  twenty-two,  both  inclusive.  Upon 
receipt  of  such  notice  by  the  commissioner  of  animal  industry  he 
shall  inspect  or  cause  his  agent  to  inspect  such  animal,  and  there¬ 
after  shall  proceed  as  provided  in  section  six. 


(Section  12  of  Chapter  90  of  the  Revised  Laws,  as  amended  by  Chapter 

608,  Acts  of  1912.) 

Section  12.  The  mayor  and  aldermen  in  cities,  except  Boston,  inspectors  of 
and  the  selectmen  in  towns  shall  annuallv,  in  March,  nominate  one  ammals- 
or  more  inspectors  of  animals,  and  before  the  first  dav  of  April  in  cities,  one 

7  inspector  to  bs 

shall  send  to  the  commissioner  of  animal  industry  the  name,  address  a  registered 
and  occupation  of  each  nominee.  Such  nominee  shall  not  be  ap- seeechapn  378, 
pointed  until  approved  by  the  commissioner  of  animal  industry. 1  Acts  of  1908' 

Section  13.  A  city  or  town  shall,  for  each  refusal  or  neglect  inspectors  of 
of  its  officers  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  preceding  pointment  of, 
section,  forfeit  not  more  than  five  hundred  dollars.  Said  board  may  boar 
appoint  one  or  more  inspectors  for  such  city  or  town,  and  may 
remove  an  inspector  wdio  refuses  or  neglects  to  be  swmrn  or  who, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  board,  does  not  properly  perform  the  duties  of 
his  office  and  may  appoint  another  inspector  for  the  residue  of  his 
term. 

Section  14.  An  inspector  shall  be  sw’orn  to  the  faithful  per-  —  oath  of; 
formance  of  his  official  duties,  and  shall  receive  a  reasonable  com¬ 
pensation  from  the  city  or  town  for  which  he  is  appointed.  If  he 
is  appointed  by  the  board  of  cattle  commissioners,  his  compensation 
shall  be  fixed  by  said  board,  shall  not  exceed  five  hundred  dollars 
a  year,  and  shall  be  paid  by  the  city  or  towm  for  which  he  is  ap¬ 
pointed.  In  towms  having  a  valuation  of  less  than  two  and  one- 

1  Chapter  378  of  the  Acts  of  1908  reads  as  follows:  In  all  cities,  at  least  one  of  the  in  - 
spectors  of  animals  appointed  under  the  provisions  of  section  twelve  of  chapter  ninety 
of  the  Revised  Laws  shall  be  a  registered  veterinary  surgeon. 


58 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


Inspectors  of 
animals, 
records  of. 


—  duties  of. 


Inspection 
of  domestic 
animals. 


Certificate 
of  healthy 
condition. 


Quarantine 
of  infected 
animals. 


half  million  dollars,  one-half  of  such  compensation,  not  exceeding 
two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  for  each  inspector  in  any  one  year, 
shall  be  paid  by  the  commonwealth. 

Section  15.  An  inspector  shall  keep  a  record  of  all  inspections 
made  by  him  and  his  doings  thereon,  and  shall  make  regular  returns 
thereof  to  the  board.  The  board  shall  prescribe  the  form  in  which 
and  the  times  at  which  such  records  and  returns  shall  be  made  and 
it  may  at  any  time  inspect  them  and  make  copies  thereof. 

Section  16.  An  inspector  shall  comply  with  and  enforce  all 
orders  and  regulations  which  may  be  directed  to  him  by  the  board 
of  cattle  commissioners  or  by  any  of  its  members.  If  he  refuses  or 
neglects  so  to  do,  he  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than 
it  may  five  hundred  dollars. 

Section  17.  Said  inspectors  shall  make  regular  and  thorough 
inspections  of  all  neat  cattle,  sheep  and  swine  found  within  the 
limits  of  their  several  cities  and  towns,  except  as  provided  in  section 
eleven.  Such  inspections  shall  be  made  at  such  times  and  in  such 
manner  as  the  board  shall  from  time  to  time  order.  They  shall  also 
from  time  to  time  make  inspections  of  all  other  domestic  animals 
within  the  limits  of  their  several  cities  and  towns  if  thev  know,  or 
have  reason  to  suspect,  that  such  animals  are  affected  with  or  have 
been  exposed  to  any  contagious  disease,  and  they  shall  immediately 
inspect  all  domestic  animals  and  any  barn,  stable  or  premises  where 
any  such  animals  are  kept  whenever  directed  so  to  do  by  the  board 
or  any  of  its  members;  but  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  not 
apply  to  the  inspection  of  sheep  or  swine  slaughtered  in  wholesale 
slaughtering  establishments,  or  to  the  obtaining  of  a  license  for  the 
slaughtering  of  such  sheep  or  swine. 

Section  18.  An  inspector  who  is  satisfied,  upon  an  examination 
of  an}"  neat  cattle,  sheep  or  swine,  that  they  are  free  from  contagious 
disease,  shall  deliver  to  the  owner  or  to  the  person  in  charge  thereof 
a  written  certificate  of  their  condition,  in  such  form  as  the  board 
shall  prescribe,  signed  by  him,  and  shall  enter  a  copy  of  said  cer¬ 
tificate  upon  his  records. 

Section  19.  An  inspector  who,  upon  an  examination  of  a 
domestic  animal,  suspects,  or  has  reason  to  believe,  that  it  is  affected 
with  a  contagious  disease  shall  immediately  cause  it  to  be  quar¬ 
antined  or  isolated  upon  the  premises  of  the  owner  or  of  the  person 
in  whose  charge  it  is  found,  or  in  such  other  place  or  inclosure  as 
he  may  designate,  and  shall  take  such  other  sanitary  measures  to 
prevent  the  spread  of  such  disease  as  may  be  necessary  or  as  shall 
be  prescribed  by  any  order  or  regulation  of  the  board.  He  shall 
also  deliver  to  the  owner  or  person  in  charge  of  such  animal,  or  to 
any  person  having  an  interest  therein,  a  written  notice  or  order  of 
quarantine  signed  by  him,  in  such  form  as  the  board  shall  prescribe, 
and  shall  enter  a  copy  of  said  notice  upon  his  records. 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — Xo.  1751. 


59 


Section  20.  Such  notice  or  order  may  be  served  by  an  officer 
qualified  to  serve  civil  process,  or  it  may  be  delivered  by  the  in¬ 
spector  to  the  owner  or  person  having  an  interest  in  the  animal 
concerned  or  to  the  person  in  charge  of  such  animal,  or  it  may  be 
left  at  his  last  and  usual  place  of  abode  or  may  be  posted  upon  the 
premises  where  said  animal  is  quarantined  or  isolated.  A  copy 
thereof,  with  the  return  of  said  officer  or  inspector  thereon  that 
such  sendee  has  been  made,  shall  be  competent  evidence  in  any 
couit  that  such  quarantine  has  been  imposed.  If  an  animal  has 
been  so  quarantined,  it  shall  remain  in  quarantine  until  the  further 
order  of  the  board  or  of  one  of  its  members. 

Section  21.  If  animals  have  been  quarantined,  collected  or 
isolated  upon  the  premises  of  the  owner  or  of  the  person  in  posses¬ 
sion  of  them  at  the  time  such  quarantine  is  imposed,  the  expense 
thereof  shall  be  paid  by  such  owner  or  person;  but  if  specific  animals 
have  been  quarantined  or  isolated  under  the  provisions  of  section 
five  or  section  nineteen  for  more  than  ten  days  upon  such  premises, 
as  suspected  of  being  affected  with  a  contagious  disease,  and  the 
owner  is  forbidden  to  sell  any  of  the  product  thereof  for  food,  or 
if  animals  have  been  quarantined,  collected  or  isolated  on  anjr 
premises  other  than  those  of  such  owner  or  person  in  possession 
thereof,  the  expense  of  such  quarantine  shall  be  paid  by  the  com¬ 
monwealth. 

Section  22.  An  inspector  who  has  caused  a  domestic  animal 
to  be  quarantined,  as  provided  in  the  preceding  section,  shall  im¬ 
mediately  give  a  written  notice  thereof,  with  a  copy  of  the  order  of 
quarantine,  to  the  board,  and  shall  give  such  information  to  no 
other  person. 

Section  23.  An  inspector,  duly  qualified,  may  enter  any  build¬ 
ing  or  part  thereof  or  any  enclosure  or  other  place  where  an  animal 
is  kept,  for  the  purpose  of  inspecting  or  examining  such  animal  and 
may  examine  or  inspect  the  same.  Whoever  prevents,  obstructs 
or  interferes  with  such  inspector  or  other  person  having  the  power 
and  authority  of  an  inspector  in  the  performance  of  any  of  his  duties 
as  provided  herein,  or  whoever  hinders,  obstructs  or  interferes  with 
his  making  such  inspection  or  examination,  or  whoever  secretes  or 
removes  any  animal,  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  it  from  being 
inspected  or  examined,  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than 
one  hundred  dollars  or  by  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  sixty 
days,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment. 

Section  24.  Inspectors  shall,  in  addition  to  their  inspections  of 
animals  for  contagious  diseases,  examine  the  barns,  stables  or  other 
enclosures  in  which  neat  cattle  are  kept,  with  reference  to  their 
situation,  cleanliness,  light,  ventilation  and  water  supply,  and  the 
general  condition  and  cleanliness  of  the  said  neat  cattle,  and  shall 
make  a  detailed  report,  with  names  and  residences  of  owners,  to 


Service  of 
notice  of 
quarantine. 


Expense  of 
quarantine. 


Notice  of 
quarantine 
to  board. 


Entry  on 
premises. 


Examination 
of  barns,  etc. 


60 


Penalties. 


Assessment 
of  damages. 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY.  [Feb. 

the  board,  which  shall  embody  it  in  its  annual  report  to  the  general 
court. 

Section  25.  An  animal  which  has  been  quarantined  or  isolated 
by  order  of  the  board  of  cattle  commissioners  or  of  any  of  its 
members  or  agents,  or  of  an  inspector,  shall,  during  the  continuance 
of  such  quarantine  or  isolation,  be  deemed  to  be  affected  with  a 
contagious  disease.  Whoever  knowingly  breaks  or  authorizes  or 
causes  to  be  broken  a  quarantine  so  imposed,  or  whoever,  contrary 
to  such  order  of  quarantine  or  isolation,  knowingly  removes  an 
animal  or  authorizes  or  causes  it  to  be  removed  from  a  building, 
place  or  enclosure  where  it  is  quarantined  or  isolated,  or  whoever,  * 
contrary  to  an  order  or  notice  of  quarantine,  knowingly  places  or 
causes  or  authorizes  to  be  placed  any  other  animal  or  animals 
within  a  building,  place  or  enclosure  where  an  animal  is  quarantined, 
or  in  contact  therewith,  or  whoever  knowingly  conceals,  sells, 
removes  or  transports,  or  knowingly  causes  or  authorizes  to  be 
concealed,  sold,  removed  or  transported,  an  animal,  knowing  or 
having  reasonable  cause  to  believe  that  it  is  affected  with  a  con¬ 
tagious  disease,  or  whoever  knowingly  authorizes  or  permits  such 
animal  to  go  at  large  upon  any  public  way  within  this  common¬ 
wealth,  or  whoever  knowingly  brings  or  authorizes  or  permits  to  be 
brought  from  another  country,  state,  district  or  territory  into  this 
commonwealth,  an  animal  which  is  affected  with  or  has  been 
exposed  to  a  contagious  disease,  or  whoever  disobeys  a  lawful  order 
or  regulation  of  the  board  of  cattle  commissioners  or  of  any  of  its 
agents  or  inspectors  in  the  performance  of  their  duty  under  the 
provisions  of  this  chapter,  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more 
than  five  hundred  dollars  or  by  imprisonment  for  not  more  than 
one  year,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment. 

Section  26.  If  the  owner  who  is  entitled  to  compensation  under 
the  provisions  of  section  six  for  the  destruction  of  an  animal  affected 
with  tuberculosis  cannot  agree  with  the  commissioner  condemning 
the  same  as  to  its  value,  the  value  shall  be  determined  by  arbitrators, 
one  of  whom  shall  be  selected  by  the  commissioner  and  one  by  the 
owner,  or  if  the  owner  neglects  or  refuses  for  twenty-four  hours  to 
select  one  the  arbitrator  already  selected  shall  select  another,  and 
if  such  arbitrators  cannot  agree,  they  shall  select  a  third  arbitrator. 
Such  arbitrators  shall  be  sworn  faithfully  to  perform  the  duties  of 
their  office,  and  shall  determine  the  value  of  such  animal  according 
to  the  provisions  of  section  six;  and  the  full  value,  so  determined, 
shall  be  paid  to  the  owner  as  provided  in  said  section.  Either  party 
aggrieved  by  the  doings  of  the  board  or  of  any  of  its  members, 
under  the  provisions  of  section  six,  or  by  the  award  of  such  arbi¬ 
trators,  may  file  a  petition  for  the  assessment  of  his  damages  in  the 
superior  court  for  the  county  in  which  such  animal  was  killed  or 
in  the  county  of  Suffolk.  Such  petition  shall  be  by  or  against  the 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — Xo.  1751. 


board  of  cattle  commissioners,  and  a  copy  thereof  shall  be  served 
upon  the  respondent  or,  if  the  petition  is  against  said  board  of  cattle 
commissioners,  upon  one  of  the  commissioners,  in  the  same  manner 
as  other  civil  process.  The  petition  shall  be  filed  in  the  clerk’s 
office  of  the  superior  court  within  thirty  days  after  the  killing  of 
such  animal  or  animals  and  shall  be  subject  to  the  provisions  of 
sections  fifty-six  and  seventy-four  of  chapter  one  hundred  and  sev- 
ent3r-three  and  the  petition  may  be  tried  in  the  same  manner  as 
other  civil  cases.  If,  upon  the  trial,  it  is  determined  that  such  animal 
was  not  affected  with  the  disease  for  which  it  was  condemned, 
reasonable  compensation  may  be  awarded  therefor,  and  if  the  owner 
recovers  damages  in  excess  of  the  amount  previously  awarded  to 
him  by  the  arbitrators  or  allowed  to  him  by  the  commissioners,  he 
shall  recover  costs;  otherwise  he  shall  pay  costs.  The  damages, 
costs  and  expenses  incurred  by  the  commissioners  in  prosecuting  or 
defending  such  action  shall  be  paid  by  the  commonwealth. 


(Section  27  of  Chapter  90  of  the  Revised  Laws,  as  amended  by  Section  2 

of  Chapter  515,  Acts  of  1908.) 

Section  27.  Whoever  kills  an  animal  or  causes  it  to  be  killed, 
with  the  consent  of  the  owner  or  person  in  possession  thereof,  upon 
suspicion  that  it  is  affected  with  or  has  been  exposed  to  a  contagious 
disease,  and  who,  upon  the  inspection  of  the  carcass  thereof,  finds 
or  is  of  opinion  that  it  is  affected  with  a  contagious  disease,  shall 
forthwith  notify  such  owner  or  person  in  possession  thereof,  and 
the  chief  of  the  cattle  bureau  or  an  inspector  of  animals  for  the 
city  or  town  in  which  such  animal  was  kept,  of  the  existence  of 
such  disease,  and  of  the  place  where  the  animal  was  found,  the 
name  of  the  owner  or  person  in  possession  thereof  and  of  the  dis¬ 
posal  made  of  such  carcass.  Whoever  violates  the  provisions  of 
this  section  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  penalties  as  are  provided 
in  section  twenty-three. 


(Section  28  of  Chapter  90  of  the  Revised  Laws,  as  amended  by  Section  1 

of  Chapter  6,  Acts  of  1911.) 

Section  28.  Contagious  diseases,  under  the  provisions  of  this 
chapter,  shall  include  glanders,  farcy,  mange,  contagious  pleuro¬ 
pneumonia,  tuberculosis,  Texas  fever,  foot-and-mouth  disease, 
rinderpest,  hog  cholera,  rabies,  anthrax  or  anthracoid  diseases, 
sheep  scab  and  actinomycosis. 

Section  29.  Whoever  fails  to  comply  with  a  regulation  made, 
or  an  order  given,  by  the  board  of  cattle  commissioners  or  by  any 
of  its  members,  in  the  discharge  of  its  or  his  duty,  shall  be  punished 
by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  five  hundred  dollars  or  by  imprisonment 
for  not  more  than  one  jrear. 


Notice  to 
be  given  of 
contagious 
diseases. 


Contagious 

diseases 

defined. 


Penalty  for 
disobedience 
of  order  of 
board. 


62 


ECONOMY  AND  EFFICIENCY. 


[Feb. 


Certain  cattle 
not  to  be  driven 
on  streets,  etc. 


Use  of 
tuberculin 
restricted, 
etc. 


Tests  free  to 
citizens. 


Compensation 
for  animals 
tested  with 
tuberculin. 


No  compensa¬ 
tion  to  violators 
of  regulations. 


Enforcement 
of  provisions. 


Killing  and 
rendering  of 
horses,  etc. 


Section  30.  Texan,  Mexican,  Cherokee,  Indian  or  other  cat¬ 
tle,  which  the  board  has  reason  to  believe  may  spread  contagious 
disease,  shall  not  be  driven  on  the  streets  of  a  city  or  town  or  on 
any  road  in  this  commonwealth,  or  outside  the  stock  yards  con¬ 
nected  with  any  railroad  in  this  commonwealth,  contrary  to  an 
order  of  the  board,  and  they  shall  be  kept  in  different  pens  from 
those  in  which  other  cattle  are  kept  in  all  stock  yrards  in  the  com¬ 
monwealth.  Whoever  violates  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall 
be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  twenty  nor  more  than  one 
hundred  dollars. 


(Section  31  of  Chapter  90  of  the  Revised  Laws,  as  amended  by  Chapter 

322,  Acts  of  1903.) 

Section  31.  Tuberculin  as  a  diagnostic  agent  for  the  detection 
of  tuberculosis  in  domestic  animals  shall  be  used  only  upon  cattle 
brought  into  the  commonwealth  and  upon  cattle  at  Brighton, 
Watertown  and  Somerville;  but  it  may  be  used  as  such  diagnostic 
agent  on  any  animal  in  any  other  part  of  the  commonwealth,  with 
the  consent  in  writing  of  the  owner  or  person  in  possession  thereof, 
and  upon  animals  wdiich  have  been  condemned  as  tuberculous  upon 
physical  examination  by  a  competent  veterinary"  surgeon.  Such 
tests  by  the  use  of  tuberculin  shall  be  made  without  charge  to 
citizens  of  the  commomvealth,  and  in  all  other  cases  the  expense  of 
such  tests  shall  be  paid  by  the  owners  of  such  animals  or  by  the 
person  in  possession  thereof. 

Section  32.  A  person  wTho  has  animals  tested  with  tuberculin 
shall  not  be  entitled  to  compensation  from  the  commonw-ealth  for 
any  animals  which  react  to  the  tuberculin  test  unless  they  have 
been  tested  by  the  board  of  cattle  commissioners  or  its  authorized 
agents,  acting  as  such  at  the  time  of  the  test,  and  such  testing  shall 
be  subject  to  the  supervision  and  control  of  the  board. 

Section  33.  No  compensation  shall  be  allowed  by"  the  common¬ 
wealth  to  an  owner  of  condemned  cattle  w'ho  has  failed  to  comply 
with  the  reasonable  regulations  of  the  board  relative  to  cleanliness, 
ventilation,  light,  disinfection  and  w"ater  supply.  An  owner  of 
cattle  who  refuses  to  comply-  with  any  such  regulation  shall  be 
punished  by-  a  fine  of  not  more  than  fifty'-  dollars. 

Section  34.  The  superior  court  shall  have  jurisdiction  in 
equity  to  enforce  the  provisions  and  restrain  violations  of  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  this  chapter. 


Section  111,  Chapter  75,  Revised  Laws. 

Section  111.  A  person,  partnership  or  corporation  engaged  in 
or  desiring  to  engage  in  the  business  of  killing  horses,  or  in.the  earn¬ 
ing  on  of  a  melting  or  rendering  establishment,  shall  annually,  in 


1915.] 


HOUSE  — Xo.  1751. 


63 


March,  apply  for  a  license  to  the  board  of  health  of  the  city  or 
town  in  which  such  business  is  to  be  carried  on.  The  application 
shall  be  in  writing  and  signed  by  the  person  or  persons  who  desire 
to  carry  on  such  business,  or,  if  the  applicant  is  a  corporation,  by 
a  duty  authorized  officer  thereof.  It  shall  state  the  names  in  full 
and  the  addresses  of  all  the  persons  who  desire  to  carry  on  such 
business,  or,  if  a  corporation  is  the  applicant,  the  names  of  all  the 
officers  thereof  and  the  street  or  other  place  where  the  business  is 
to  be  conducted.  The  board  of  health  of  a  city  or  town  may  grant 
such  licenses  after  it  is  satisfied  that  the  applicants  have  a  suitable 
building  and  plant  in  a  situation  approved  by  said  board  and  that 
they  have  suitable  trucks  or  wagons  for  the  removal  of  dead  ani¬ 
mals.  The  license  shall  state  the  name  of  the  licensee,  the  situation 
of  the  building  or  establishment  in  which  the  business  is  to  be 
carried  on,  and  shall  continue  in  force  until  the  first  day  of  April  of 
the  year  next  ensuing,  unless  sooner  revoked.  The  board  of  health 
shall  keep  a  record  of  such  licenses  which  are  granted  by  it,  and 
shall  notify  the  board  of  cattle  commissioners  of  the  granting  of 
any  such  license,  giving  the  name  and  address  of  the  licensee.  The 
fee  for  a  license  shall  not  exceed  one  dollar,  and  a  license  majr  be 
revoked  at  any  time  by  the  board  of  health.  Licensees  shall  report 
to  the  board  of  cattle  commissioners,  in  such  form  and  at  such 
times  as  it  may  order,  every  animal  received  by  them  which  is 
found  to  be  infected  with  a  contagious  disease.  No  unlicensed 
person  shall  carry  on  the  business  of  killing  horses  or  of  melting  and 
rendering.  So  much  of  section  twenty-five  of  chapter  ninety  as 
provides  that  no  person  shall  knowingly  sell  an  animal  with  a  con¬ 
tagious  disease  shall  not  apply  to  any  person  who  sells  such  animal 
to  a  licensee  under  the  provisions  of  this  section,  if  such  animal  is 
to  be  killed  or  rendered  at  the  establishment  of  such  licensee.  "Who¬ 
ever  violates  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  punished  by  a 
fine  of  not  more  than  two  hundred  dollars  or  by  imprisonment  for 
not  more  than  ninety  days,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment. 


Acts  of  1907,  Chapter  243. 

An  Act  relative  to  the  Notice  required  by  Law  to  be  given 
by  Boards  of  Health,  Corporations  and  Persons  in  Certain 
Cases. 

Be  it  enacted ,  etc.,  as  follows: 

Section  1.  The  notice  required  by  section  seventj^  of  chapter 
fifty-six  and  by  sections  one  hundred  and  one  hundred  and  eleven 
of  chapter  seventy-five  of  the  Revised  Laws  to  be  given  by  boards 
of  health,  corporations  or  persons  to  the  board  of  cattle  commis¬ 
sioners  shall  be  given  to  the  chief  of  the  cattle  bureau  of  the  state 


Boards  of 
health  to  keep 
record  of 
licenses 
granted,  and 
notify  chief  of 
cattle  bureau 
of  all  licenses 
granted,  and 
names  and 
addresses  of 
licensees.  See 
chap.  243,  Acts 
of  1907. 


Licensees  to 
report  all  cases 
of  contagious 
diseases  to 
chief  of  cattle 
bureau.  See 
chap.  243,  Acts 
of  1907. 


Notice  to  be 
given  chief  of 
cattle  bureau. 


3  0112  098432641 


Ji 


64 


ECONOMY ,  AND  EFFICIENCY.  [Feb.  1915. 


board  of  agriculture;  and  the  penalties  for  failure  to  give  such 
notice  to  the  chief  of  the  cattle  bureau  shall  be  the  same  as  are 
specified  in  the  said  chapters  for  failure  to  give  such  notice  to  the 
board  of  cattle  commissioners. 

Section  2.  This  act  shall  take  effect  upon  its  passage.  [Ap¬ 
proved  March  25,  1907. 


Inspection, 
etc.,  of  places 
where  neat 
cattle,  etc 
kept,  etc. 


are 


Report. 


Penalty. 


Certain 
powers  of  the 
board  of  health 
not  affected. 


Chapter  381,  Acts  of  1911. 

An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Inspection  and  Regulation  by 
the  Cattle  Bureau  of  the  State  Board  of  Agriculture  of 
Places  where  Neat  Cattle,  Other  Ruminants  or  Swine 

ARE  KEPT. 

Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  as  follows: 

Section  1.  The  chief  of  the  cattle  bureau  and  his  agents  are 
hereby  authorized  to  enter  and  inspect  all  barns,  stables,  pastures, 
yards  and  other  places  where  neat  cattle,  other  ruminants,  or  swine 
are  kept.  The  chief  of  the  cattle  bureau  may  make  and  enforce  all 
reasonable  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  sanitary  condition 
of  such  barns,  stables  and  other  places,  and  of  the  neat  cattle,  other 
ruminants  and  swine  kept  therein,  such  rules  and  regulations  to  be 
subject  to  approval  by  the  governor  and  council. 

Section  2.  The  state  board  of  health,  the  dairy  bureau,  and 
boards  of  health  of  cities  and  towns  shall  report  to  the  chief  of  the 
cattle  bureau  any  and  all  cases  brought  to  their  attention  where 
barns,  stables  or  other  enclosures,  in  which  neat  cattle,  other  rumi¬ 
nants  or  swine  are  kept,  are  found  to  be  in  an  unsanitary  condition. 

Section  3.  Whoever  prevents  or  hinders  the  chief  of  the  cattle 
bureau  or  any  agent  thereof  from  exercising  the  powers  hereby  con¬ 
ferred  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  fifty  dollars  or 
b}r  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  thirty  days. 

Section  4.  Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  to  nullify  or 
affect  the  powers  and  duties  of  boards  of  health  conferred  upon 
them  by  sections  sixty-seven  to  seventy-four,  inclusive,  of  chapter 
seventy-five  of  the  Revised  Laws,  and  by  sections  sixty-nine  to 
seventy-two,  inclusive,  of  chapter  one  hundred  and  two  of  the 
Revised  Laws.  [Approved  May  1,  1911. 


